Showing posts with label Kansas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kansas. Show all posts

Thursday, February 23, 2017

This week, a bright day in the darkness that is Kansas

Governor Sam Brownback is a teabagger, a right wing radical.  He and his policies have left Kansas in a big smoking crater politically and economically.  It is unlikely he will ever hold public office after his current term expires, because that is the epic scale of his failure.

Brownback, not laughing now
Trickle down economics does not work.  The only thing it does, the only thing it EVER has done, is to be redistributive, taking money from the poor and middle classes and then giving it to the 1%.  It explodes the wealth and income gap enormously.  And it creates massive debt and deficits for the state or nation that enacts it.  Greed, not greatness is the driving motivation.

Image result for arthur laffer
Laffer, not laughing now

Earlier this week, the legislature in Kansas took a GENUINELY bi-partisan approach to governance when it repealed the failed tax policy of Brownback and Laffer.  Brownback promptly vetoed the repeal, and the House side of the Kansas Legislature then overturned the veto with a vote 1 over the required number.  Sadly the Senate, which is much much smaller, tried to do the same, but fell 3 votes short.

So for now the tax policies of Brownback stay, but it is likely there will be another attempt at repeal and it is expected the next try will be successful.  It is sufficient that they nearly succeeded in Kansas, and that they plan to try again.

The architect, so to speak, the designer of disaster, was one Arthur Laffer, who previously advised Ronald Reagan to implement trickle down economics which was a huge failure, is now abandoning the sinking ship that is Brownback and Kansas to promote the same tax policies with Trump's administration.  What Brownback and his Republican legislature put in effect was entirely on party lines, was nearly identical to what Trump is now planning to do with the cooperation of the Republican controlled Congress.

Let me outline some of the outcomes of the Reagan effort, which parallels the much earlier "Horse and Sparrow" debacle of the same tax plan in the 19th century.
"Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973. In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%. The federal deficit under Reagan peaked at 6% of GDP in 1983, falling to 3.2% of GDP in 1987 and to 3.1% of GDP in his final budget. The inflation-adjusted rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan; however, federal deficit as percent of GDP was up throughout the Reagan presidency from 2.7% at the end of (and throughout) the Carter administration. As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation."

So to recap, Reaganomics caused a huge decline in federal revenue, and we became the world's largest debtor nation after being the world's largest creditor nation. The ONLY reason that things improved towards the end of the Reagan administration were the reversals of his tax cuts with ELEVEN tax increases. But NEVER have the 1% returned to an level of paying their fair share. The burden of making up the deficiencies from Reagan forwards has always fallen on those who earn less and have less financial resources than the wealthy, who benefit disproportionately from government.

From CBS News:
Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal.
Raising taxes, that is just what they are doing in Kansas, but only after significant harm. And that is what we have to look forward to from Rump and the Republians AGAIN.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Democratic Conventions in Philly, 1948 and 2016: some things change, too many stay the same

A h/t to TPT's Almanac for the reminder of this very famous HHH speech.

As we have seen, at their respective conventions, Republicans have not changed, and the conservatives among them - the only members they tolerate after repeated purges - are still opponents of civil rights and pro-discrimination.  Democrats are still the inclusive progressives, making speeches that hold up well across history.

It will be an embarrassment to conservatives as historians look back at this period that they were so regressive and so divisive, embracing all matters of discrimination and exclusion.  President Obama echoed Hubert Humphrey's speech in Philadelphia in 1948 when he spoke about the arc of history.  It is a particular shame that we must continue to rely on our judicial branch to overturn voter suppression laws, like those which were just overturned recently in Wisconsin, Texas, Kansas and North Carolina.  Conservatives are still trying to keep minorities from voting -- and shame on them for it.

Per the accompanying Youtube notes, this speech ranked 66 in the top 100 speeches of the 20th century.

   

Additional bits of history -- this speech, like the ones this past week, were made in Philadelphia, 68 years ago. At that convention, instead of Bernie supporters, Conservative democrats walked out in protest to the addition of a civil rights plank that would correct the wrongs of Jim Crow. This makes it all the more poignant that this convention was addressed by a sitting black president. Moderates did not want to upset the conservative 'Dixie-crats', but liberal democrats pushed the civil rights position. Wikipedia provides the details:
In response, all 22 members of the Mississippi delegation, led by Governor Fielding L. Wright and former Governor Hugh L. White, walked out of the assembly. Thirteen members of the Alabama delegation followed, led by Leven H. Ellis. The bolted delegates and other Southerners then formed the States' Rights Democratic Party ("Dixiecrats"), which nominated Strom Thurmond for President and Wright for Vice President. ...In the absence of three dozen Southern delegates who walked out of the convention with Thurmond, 947 Democrats voted to nominate Truman as their candidate (against 263 for Senator Richard Russell, Jr. of Georgia).
We have seen a variety of sources, from the conservative Wall Street Journal to Think Progress acknowledge that conservatives opposed civil rights, regardless of party, while the progressive wing of the Democratic party spearheaded the legislation in cooperation with liberal Republicans like the gravel-voiced Everett Dirksen of Illinois.  From Think Progress:
...it simply highlights the fact that politics in 1964 were not ideologically aligned. The main block of support for white supremacy was a group of Southern Democrats, most of whom were very conservative on all issues, and all of whom were very conservative on the issue of race. They were joined in their support for white supremacy by a smaller block of non-southern conservative Republicans. Conservative movement organs like The National Review supported white supremacy, as did Barry Goldwater who was the leading conservative politician of the time. It’s a very interesting historical fact about the United States of America that for most of the twentieth century conservative southerners generally belonged to the Democratic Party. But it’s also true that if you think of American politics in terms of the history of ideological struggle, civil rights is clearly an issue on which the liberals were right and over time conservatives came around to that view.
After the Cleveland and Philadelphia conventions this month, we can see that at least the GOP is undergoing a similar fracturing process between extreme conservatives, and moderates who are consistently repudiating the excesses of the majority right represented at the convention.

Now that we have seen the increasingly radical and more extreme right have attempted to hijack credit for civil rights, it is worth noting where the votes came from, and whom, to pass the subsequent legislation that was drafted by Hubert Humphrey as a continuation of his efforts in 1948.(wikipedia again):
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
  • Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)
The Senate version:
If the same vote were held in Cleveland, or in the Republican majority House and Senate, I would expect a vote that mirrored the conservative Southern Democrats and Republicans of 1968.

It is also worth noting that the right is STILL making many of the same arguments that went through the courts following enactment of the legislation. For example, Senator Rand Paul has promoted the position that businesses should have the right to discriminate for ANY reason, as a right of private property ownership. Humphrey was in the Senate representing Minnesota in cooperation with President Lyndon Johnson at the time this legislation, a direct extension and continuation of the policies in the 1948 speech,  Again, Wikipedia has an excellent summation:
There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers". Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment and also violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process". In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims. Resistance to the public accommodation clause continued for years on the ground, especially in the South. When local college students in Orangeburg, South Carolina attempted to desegregate a bowling alley in 1968, they were violently attacked, leading to rioting and what became known as the "Orangeburg massacre." Resistance by school boards continued into the next decade, with the most significant declines in black-white school segregation only occurring at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s in the aftermath of the Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968) court decision.
In view of the acceptance of White Supremacists, John Birchers and others that were rejected by mainstream conservatives in 1948 and 1968 it is well past time that the right came out of the darkness of bigotry and regressive politics. It is time the right stopped trying to turn the clock back to Jim Crow and worse.  It is time the right stopped their concerted efforts to make this a country that only acknowledges and gives preference and advantage to heterosexual white christian males (and even then mostly protestant males).

We've waited way to long already as a nation, especially a nation in the 21st century, not the 19th or shameful first half of the 20th.  THIS is just part of what makes the 2016 election so significant.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Kim Davis: What's Wrong with the Intersection of God and Government - part 2

This is a long post, but if you don't have the time or interest to read all of it, I encourage you to at least skim the shocking examples from current events news of religion enforced by government officials intruding into the lives of people who should be protected from that by our constitution. I believe the examples below are significant to the arguments of freedom of religion being practiced on the job by people who are also exercising the authority of government at the same time.

Kim Davis, Rowan County Clerk, Kentucky doesn't want to do her job serving the public -- the WHOLE public, and now is not serving the public much at all.  She wants her bigotry to supersede the rights of others on the faulty premise of the exercise of religious freedom.

Kim Davis got out of jail and went back to her office this week, beginning the week with a big bang, and ending it with a whimper and another loss in court.

To the religious right, this does not seem like such a big deal; people can get served elsewhere, so what if religion by a government employee is disrupting the function of government, so what if people are suffering very real discrimination in having to go outside their home area to get married.  The inconvenience, cost, and difficulty are exactly what they WANT, the chance to stick their finger in the eye of people with whom they disagree. 

That is the most they can hope for as public consensus continues to grow AGAINST their bias and hatred, including conservative opinion locally  but also nationally,

So why should we NOT allow anyone in the capacity of a government official or exercising the authority and legal force of government to also exercise their religious preferences (or preferences they try to justify on the pretext of religion)?

Let's look at a few of the more egregious examples from the news.
From the Free Thinker, reporting on a part of America outside the 50 states.  This applies as an example because Puerto Rico is a part of the US, subject to the same freedom of religion provision of our own Constitution AND the Constitution of Puerto Rico, which mandates even more specifically the separation of church and state.  And this STILL happened.  It is significant because of two points - that a roadblock for reasons other than police purposes is a really serious intrusion on individual freedom to go about one's life and business, an intrusion that most people would resent; and secondly because it demonstrates that intruding one's religion into how government is conducted amounts not only to giving preferential treatment of one religion over others, but to an unfair subsidizing of the practice and promotion of that religion with tax payer funds and government authority.

You should not have to make the choice to refuse to be proselytized to someone wearing a uniform and badge, and carrying a gun and handcuffs.  That is intimidating.

It is also the same argument against Kim Davis (minus guns and handcuffs).

‘In the name of Jesus, step out of your car’

An atheist group in Puerto Rico has lodged a formal complaint against police who subjected motorists to a ‘faith’ blitz on July 1.

‘In the name of Jesus, step out of your car’

In a statement issued yesterday, Elisaul Rodriguez, Vice-President of Ateístas de Puerto Rico (Atheists of Puerto Rico) alleged that a “faith road block” had been set up by Barceloneta City police.
Officers stopped people on the road for the purpose of preaching, distributing written religious propaganda and praying for drivers.
Rodriguez added:
It was a religious activity in which the Christian faith was professed, particularly of an Evangelical variant.
We understand that the Police Department of Barceloneta City has incurred violations to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico …

Article II, Section III says: ‘No law related to the establishment of any religion will be approved and the free exercise of religion will not be prohibited. There will be complete separation of church and state’.
We must also point out that Puerto Rico, as a territory, is under the protection of the Federal Constitution of the United States of America, which also provides a clause for the separation of church and state.
Acts carried out during the “faith road-block” reflected the officers’ personal religious interests and were outside the police departments scope of duty, Rodriguez pointed out. The officers wore their uniforms and badges and:
Used resources provided by the Government of Puerto Rico that should only be used for the purpose of fighting crime, not for personal religious benefits.
This sends the message that the State is Christianizing its citizens, which corresponds to a canonical government and impairs the integrity and impartiality of the State.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Kansas --- Brownback and his administration are taking the state down the toilet

There's nothing but bad news in Kansas on revenue and their economy:

Kansas tax revenue $11.2 million less than expected in March

Weak sales, corporate income and oil tax revenue to blame

Tax revenue to the state of Kansas slipped $11.2 million below estimates in March, state officials said Tuesday.
Collection of sales, corporate income, and oil and gas severance taxes fell below forecasts developed by state officials in November. Projections were revised downward at that time to reflect diminished optimism about the state’s short-term economic future.

House Minority Leader Tom Burroughs, D-Kansas City, said sweeping state income tax reductions were marketed by the Republican-led Legislature and Gov. Sam Brownback as a “shot of adrenaline” to the heart of Kansas’ economy. After three years, Burroughs said, the GOP’s tax policy had been exposed as “more like an ax wound.”
“Kansas continues to bleed revenue as is evident by this month’s numbers," he said. "How we resolve this issue remains unknown as the legislative session is nearly over and we haven’t seen a comprehensive balanced budget.”

State revenue has fallen hundreds of millions of dollars since implementation of legislation approved by the 2012 Legislature and Brownback to repeal state income tax on owners of more than 300,000 businesses and to reduce individual income tax rates.
Kansas is in such bad shape, unable to manage the minimally necessary safety maintenance on its infrastructure that the state is starting to fall down in rubble.  You can be confident that the Republican majorities at the Federal level are doing the same slighting of infrastructure; they won't make up the gaps.  From the Wichita Business Journal:

No April Fools' Day Joke: 2,416 of Kansas's Bridges Need Structural Repair, New Analysis of U.S. Department of Transportation Data Finds

Federal Highway & Bridge Funding Facing May 31 Deadline

The analysis of the federal government data, conducted by American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) Chief Economist Dr. Alison Premo Black, shows cars, trucks and school buses cross Kansas's 2,416 structurally compromised bridges 787,632 times every day.  Not surprisingly, the most heavily traveled are on the Interstate Highway System, which carries the bulk of truck traffic and passenger vehicles

....
The ARTBA analysis of the bridge data supplied by the states to the U.S. DOT also found:
  • Kansas ranks 7th place nationally in the number of structurally deficient bridges—2,416.
  • Kansas ranks 22nd place in the percentage of its bridges that are classified as structurally deficient—10 percent.

Sam Brownback's policies are literally jeopardizing the safety of Kansas citizens and anyone traveling in or through Kansas.

Sam Brownback has promised his policies would work given time.  The architect of those policies is failed Reaganomics trickle-down economist Arthur Laffer - famous, or infamous, for the Laffer curve.

Here is what Laffer was saying back in January 2015, and in 2012.
Back in August 2012, Laffer told a crowd at the Johnson County Community College, if Kansas would slash its income tax rates, it would result in “enormous prosperity.”
He told a reporter at the time that he had not produced an economic model on when Kansas will notice meaningful economic growth.
Two-and-a-half years later, Kansas is staring at a budget crisis, with more than a billion dollar gap between revenues and expenses projected in the current and next budget years. The state is also experiencing a low private job growth rate, as well as a slow-growing economy.
In a 45-minute phone interview, Laffer said while he is “not surprised,” he didn’t know why the deficits have occurred. He still believes adamantly in his supply-side economic theory: If you reduce income taxes, you will raise more revenue, not less.

...The 74-year-old former economist for President Ronald Reagan, who remains controversial among mainstream economists, was paid $75,000 to consult with Brownback and his staff before the tax-cut legislation passed in 2012. Some say Laffer was the inspiration for the Kansas tax-cut plan, if not its architect.
He has stayed in touch with Brownback. Laffer told me the two talked just before the November election.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/steve-rose/article7024256.html#storylink=cpy
No one in Kansas is laughing.  The state is swirling around on its final go-around down the crapper.  Kansas is severely under-performing the economies of adjoining states and the national averages, while facing a continuing severe revenue shortfall.  While Laffer -- and presumably Brownback -- want to wait to see results in ten years, the state doesn't have that long.  Further, there is ZERO evidence that following this economic model and policies will EVER produce the desired results.

These are the same policies touted in other red states, and by conservatives at the federal government level.  NEVER have these policies produced the promised economic results.  What they do produce is a more rapidly expanding instability from the enormously widening chasm of wealth and income inequality.

Like fictional cartoon figure Bullwinkle the Moose,  Governor Brownback continues with the line "this time, for sure!", believed only by the most gullible, the most credulous, and possibly a handful of toddlers.

The latest news refutes the promises and claims made by Brownback.

As noted by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:
  • The tax cuts delivered lopsided benefits to the wealthy.  Kansas’ tax cuts didn’t benefit everyone.  Most of the benefits went to high-income households.  Kansas even raised taxes for low-income families to offset a portion of the revenue loss; otherwise the cuts to schools and other services would have been greater still.
  • Kansas’ tax cuts haven’t boosted its economy.  Since the tax cuts took effect at the beginning of 2013, Kansas has added jobs at a pace modestly slower than the country as a whole.  The earnings and incomes of Kansans have performed slightly worse than the U.S. as a whole as well.  (An exception is farmers, whose incomes improved as the state recovered from a drought.)  And so far there’s no evidence that Kansas is enjoying exceptional business growth: the number of registered business grew more slowly last year than in 2012, and the state’s share of all U.S. business establishments fell over the first three quarters of last year, the latest data available.
  • There’s little evidence to suggest that Kansas’ tax cuts will improve its economy in the future.  No one knows for certain how Kansas’ economy will perform in the years ahead, but it isn’t likely to stand out from other states.  The latest official state revenue forecast, from November 2013, projects Kansas personal income will grow more slowly than total national personal income in 2014 and 2015.[1]
Evidence from other states and academic studies casts further doubt on claims that the tax cuts will cause the state’s economy to boom.  States that cut taxes the most in the 1990s performed worse, on average, over the course of the next economic cycle than states that were more prudent.[2]  And the academic literature overwhelmingly finds that states with lower personal income taxes perform no better economically than their peers.[3]




It's not just Kansas; every other Republican administered state with Republican majority or super-majority legislatures that emulated these policies is having similar problems.  Conservative Economics, like Republican Math, DO NOT WORK.  Today from Yahoo Finance News:

Why State Tax Cuts Aren’t Driving Job Growth
But the dramatic tax cutting doesn’t appear to have done nearly as much for job growth as promised. 
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel says that Wisconsin ranked 35th of the 50 states in job growth during the first three years of Scott Walker’s term, and dead last among its immediate neighbors, including, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Ohio.
Kansas hasn’t fared much better. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the state’s rate of job growth has lagged the national average since Brownback’s tax cuts took effect.
North Carolina, at least, matched the national average in job creation in 2013. But the total number of jobs added to the state’s economy in the second half of the year – when the tax cuts went into effect, was actually smaller than the total number added in 2012.
Repeat after me: REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC POLICIES SUCK, THEY DO NOT WORK, THEY DO NOT DELIVER AS PROMISED.  And if you're planning to travel to any of these red states, you might want to find routes that don't require any kind of bridge crossing.  That is, just to be on the safe side.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

GIGO: Islamophobia, the Ridiculous Radical Religious Right, and Hate Crimes

Remember when....... pick one.......the state of (blank) passed laws banning Sharia law?  There's more coming.
A panel of local Muslims last week denounced the state’s ban on a foreign law designed to bar Sharia or Islamic law.
“Folks were in this hysteria thinking that the minority Muslim Community here in North Carolina could somehow impose our laws, laws taken from the Sharia,” Imam Khalid Griggs of Community Mosque said at a forum on the subject held Tuesday, Jan. 27 at the Polo Recreation Center
...Proponents of the bans say they protect the Constitution, but many disagree. Muslim groups have been joined by Jewish organizations in their opposition to the bans. The Anti-Defamation League in Florida opposed that state’s foreign law ban, which passed last year, for fear of its potential effects on alimony, child custody and even the ability to remarry for Jews who divorce in Israel."
The right is wrong, and has been wrong since Barry Goldwater said this:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
But Goldwater was correct when he noted, as an ardent opponent of the religious right:
Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies.
Ironically, both quotes are from Goldwater's presidential nomination acceptance speech in San Francisco waaaaay back in 1964.

That right wing extremism has resulted in actual hate crimes.  No, not the shooting of the three Muslim students in North Carolina, but in more clear and obvious and genuine hate crimes like the burning of a Mosque in Ohio by an Indiana man 'riled up' by Fox News.

But there is plenty of hate to go around with out actual violence, like regarding the arson attack on a Muslim Center in Texas, where a person misrepresenting himself to be a fireman used social media to post this:

We have plenty of hate, by the right, from the right, riling up people with purely evil right wing propaganda full of lies.

There is a real tragedy that OPPOSING the evils and abuses of religion, like the ones below, from any and every religion, wherever it occurs, is being miscontrued as a hate crime in what appears to be an ordinary, every day case of gun violence by a man in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in the tragic shooting deaths of three Muslim students by a man obsessed like George Zimmerman with trying to dominate and intimidate a wide variety of people in his immediate neighborhood with his excessive gun collection, a man who had apparent anger issues.

There are a lot of things to criticize Craig Hicks for, but being an Islamophobe is not one of them, nor should being Anti-Theist.   This is a case where the Left wing media has it wrong, in generalizing that being Anti-religion generally for what is wrong with religious oppression and conflict is the same as being Anti-Muslim.  And of course the Right has it wrong as well.  The promoting of Islamophobia was one of the things Hicks opposed.  Hicks was indicted by a grand jury yesterday, per MSNBC news:
A grand jury indicted a North Carolina man on Monday for the shooting deaths of a newlywed Muslim couple and the wife's sister last week, a court official said.
Craig Hicks, 46, of Chapel Hill, was charged by a grand jury with three counts of first-degree murder and one of discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling, said Angela Kelly, an assistant clerk of the Durham County Superior Court.
Investigators have said initial findings indicate a dispute over parking prompted the shooting, but they are looking into whether Hicks was motivated by hatred toward the victims because they were Muslim.
A new law to ban Sharia law is being introduced in Montana, following passage in other states, and of course the overturning of such a ban after Oklahoma passed one. From another apparent Islamophobe/ bigot, in the Examiner:
Montana's Senate Bill 199–also called the Primacy of Montana Law–would prohibit the state from abiding by foreign religious customs and foreign laws within the court system. Well there's an idea! A United States that follows United States laws. I'm getting excited already. Maybe we'll even follow the Constitution one day. Janna Taylor, a Republican state senator in Montana, said that the bill is modeled after a similar anti-Sharia law that has been passed by Republicans in three other states so far: Tennessee, Kansas and Louisiana.
Of course, the islamophobe bigots CLAIM, wrongly, that they support the U.S. Constitution as well as their state constitutions. They just forget that we have the supremacy clause, which establishes that where there is a conflict between Federal and State law, Federal law 'wins' aka usually supersedes state law.

We have in this country, and have always had, religious courts in parallel to our secular court system.  In Christianity it is Canon law, versions of which are practiced by Roman Catholics, Eastern Rite Christianity, Anglicans and Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists, Lutherans, and in some forms by Quakers and the Amish.  Judaism has Halacha (aka Halakha) law and courts, and Islam in this country has Sharia.

An example of how a religious court operates would be the requirement for both a SECULAR legal decision and a religious one to end a marriage, either by divorce or annulment in some faiths and the requirement to do so by secular courts as well, before one can marry, IF one's religion has that requirement (and some do).  In other instances religious courts are purely advisory, for example on the finer points of keeping Kosher or Halal.

If you don't want to go through the religious courts, then no one requires it for secular purposes; it is entirely voluntary as a matter of religious faith and conscience.

But the ridiculous radical religious right deliberately misrepresents this, ginning up fear that Sharia law is somehow a threat to replace secular law.  It never has been and never would or could be; this is pure propaganda, complete ignorance pandering to the gullible, looking for an excuse to express their hatred for anyone who does not conform to their belief or will. From the same source above:
At least individual states are finally taking matters into their own hands to stop the travesty of Sharia law in America. The Christian Action Network noted on its website that Sharia law, also called Islamic law, has been used in United States courts multiple times to override America's law under the guise of Freedom of Religion. Of course! Freedom of Religion is suddenly important when it involves catering to the violent religion of Islam. However, if you take your Bible to the public square you better have on a bullet proof vest and when you demand protection from your President against foreign and domestic threats you get psycho-babble about the Crusades.
The Christian Action Network site went on to say: “Montana may be on the brink of accomplishing what Congress, the federal court system and all but three other states could not: Banning Islamic Shariah law from being used in state courts.”
There is NO case, whatsoever, ANYWHERE in the United States, its possessions or territories, at any time, that any religious law, Sharia, Halacha, or Canon law, has been used to override American law.

Another example of this kind of fear mongering and hate peddling is occurring across right wing media over a Sharia court in Irving Texas.  Specifically, a proposal for a ban on Sharia law in Mississippi is referencing that religious court, from the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN):
Lawmakers in Mississippi are proposing legislation that would ban Sharia law from the state.
"I think we need to make a stand and a statement that we are not going to allow it to be used in our court system," state Rep. John Moore, R-Brandon, said.
More than two dozen states have considered similar bans on the laws followed in Muslim nations.
A group of Muslims in northern Texas has created what may be the first official Sharia law system in the United States
The Sharia tribunal in Irving, Texas, said they're not planning to follow the type of Sharia practiced in Muslim countries, where severe punishments are handed out for even small crimes, women have very few rights, and blasphemy against Mohammed can result in a death sentence.
But in Mississippi, Rep. Moore recently introduced a meaure that blocks any foreign laws from being enforced or applied in the state and country.
He made clear that Sharia law is a big concern and wants to make sure it never gets argued in a Mississippi courtroom.
He said a Muslim defendent could try to use Sharia law as a defense against a U.S. criminal case.
This is a right wing lie; no one has succeeded in using such a defense, nor is it a defense attempt unique to one religion.  The closest we have come to a problem with a religious law interfering with the function of civil and criminal secular law was the abuse by the Roman Catholic church in conducting their own investigations under Canon Law instead of immediately reporting all accusations of sex crimes.  This led to priests being protected by the Church from legal action, including prosecution  under cover of priests being subject to Canon Law rather than civil and criminal secular law, as we see in the findings of subsequent law suits and investigative reports by journalists.

So we see the ridiculous, radical, religious right engaging in the most vile hypocrisy when it comes to outlawing Canon Law, and instead obsessing factually falsely about Sharia Law, as a justification and pretence for raging bigotry and Islamophobia.

Friday, October 3, 2014

Weekly Roundup -- the News Highlights

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3221/3155132184_9d68d7d4dd_z.jpg

In no particular order, from Reuters:

Court says Kansas Democrats don't have to run Senate candidate


(Reuters) - A court ruled on Wednesday that Kansas Democrats do not have to put a candidate on the ballot for the U.S Senate, a decision that is expected to boost chances of an independent beating the Republican incumbent in an election that may swing control of the chamber.
A three-judge panel of the Shawnee County District Court ruled that no one has to replace Democrat Chad Taylor, who dropped out last month.
Having no Democrat on the ballot will likely bring more votes to independent Greg Orman in his race against Senator Pat Roberts.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican, said Taylor did not properly withdraw. Kobach filed a lawsuit, but the Kansas Supreme Court on September 18 ordered Taylor's name kept off the ballot.
David Orel, a Kansas Democrat, immediately filed a lawsuit with the Kansas Supreme Court contending that state law compels the party to replace Taylor. Orel said Democrats are entitled to have someone on the ballot.
But lawyers for the party argued that it has the option of replacing Taylor but is not required to do so, even though the statute says the party "shall" fill a vacancy on the ballot.
The court panel determined that the word "shall" was not a mandatory directive but instead is meant to say who is responsible for filling a vacancy if there is interest in doing so.
Orel did not appear on Monday at a hearing of the judicial panel, which took the case at the direction of the Kansas Supreme Court.
Orel is truly a democrat in name only; his son is the campaign manager for GOP Governor Sam Brownback's re-election committee. Orel appeared to cut and run before the legal challenge even got started.

Kobach is the right wing extremist who drafted the failed 'papers please' anti-immigrant legislation for Arizona that was copied by other states -- where it was equally a failure. Earlier, when the Kansas Supreme Court determined that the Democratic candidate could withdraw, Kobach made a lot of noise about not sending out ballots without a Democratic candidate, or sending out two and three versions of the ballots, and trying to include disclaimers on the ballot, and also at one point wanted to hold the elections in November a week or more late, which is contrary to federal law. He also claimed he had a federal waiver, which was false, and in fact never sought one.

The above massive, epic right wing failure at election tampering has resulted in Kobach as well as Brownback being behind in the polls, as well as headlines like this in the Kansas City Star:

Kris Kobach should stop trying to influence U.S. Senate race

While a three-judge panel in Shawnee County District Court made no final decision, it ruled Kobach had no grounds to intervene. Kobach has been working overtime to get a Democrat on the ballot to potentially dilute the voting strength of independent candidate Greg Orman, who is challenging incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Roberts.
Kobach, a lawyer, has a habit of intervening in controversial matters — like other states’ immigration laws. He also has a record of losing.
The citizens of Kansas would be better served if their secretary of state worked on ensuring a smooth-running election instead of trying to interfere in one of its races.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article2355519.html#storylink=cpy


Tea bagger policies have been disastrous for Kansas.  Republicans have been extremely 'intrusive' when they get control of government, and not in any kind of good or honest way.

And in other news, from the Chicago Sun Times:

State rep candidate voted in Illinois and Wisconsin

Republican Kathy Myalls is urging voters to elect her to a seat in the Illinois State Legislature.
But will she vote for herself?
It’s a fair question, since records show Myalls has voted in both Illinois and Wisconsin in recent years.
In one case, she cast a vote in a primary election in Illinois. Then just three months later, records show she voted in Wisconsin to cast a ballot in the state’s recall election. The effort was aimed largely at recalling Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — someone with whom Myalls is pictured on her Facebook page. Myalls then voted in Wisconsin’s presidential general election in 2012 before returning to Illinois to vote the following spring. 

Myalls appears to have kept voter registrations in two states, and to have failed to designate one home as her primary residence for voting purposes -- aka voter fraud.  You know -- the KIND VOTER ID IS SUPPOSED TO PREVENT, BUT DOESN'T.  It also appears that with all the commuting back and forth between her TWO primary residences, that Myalls should be disqualified for failing to meet the residency requirements for candidates. 

Ooops!

Then we have the hankety pankety in Arkansas with Republicans and the voter fraud problem with their candidate for Attorney General.
from the Washington Examiner: 
Arkansas Republican AG candidate's voter registration canceled
Leslie Rutledge, the GOP candidate for attorney general of Arkansas, is no longer registered to vote in the state, even though she’s had a state-issued voter registration card since 2013.
Pulaski County Clerk Larry Crane canceled Rutledge’s voter registration this week after he discovered she was also registered to vote in Washington, D.C., and possibly even Virginia. Rutledge had registered in Pulaski County in 2006 but canceled before registering in Washington in 2008.
Rutledge is listed as an “inactive” voter in D.C.. She complains that it was Crane’s responsibility to notify other jurisdictions of her registration so that they would be canceled.

Except it turns out that is not true.  Rutledge was registered in BOTH D.C. AND in Virginia, at the same time, and her voter registration was never canceled in Arkansas during that time either, because she did not notify the Sec State or her local office.  It appears that neither DC nor Virginia notified any other state either, although they should, and in most jurisdictions it is required they do so.  So responsibility for the multiple registrations seems to rest with Rugledge, but is also shared with the voter registration offices in both D.C. and Virginia.  The only bureaucrats who did NOT drop the ball with the information available was Arkansas.

However, when Rutledge returned to Arkansas, she did not RE-register, she did not notify or acknowledge to any voter registration official that she had moved anywhere.  She simply requested a change of address form for her old Arkansas registration, effectively affirming her vote registration in Arkansas for the entire time.

Remember, ignorance is not a defense in violating the law, and this is the last person, one running for the office of state Attorney General, who should be claiming they didn't know.

But it gets worse for Rutlege.  Because her voter registration has been found to be invalid, and canceled, her status as a candidate is in invalid as well, because a candidate must be, under the AR constitution and other legislation, a valid voter in that state.  Now she's not, and there has been a complaint filed to have her name removed from the November ballot.  She can re-register to vote, if she does so quickly; Arkansas requires voter registration 30 days before an election in order to vote.  (Minnesota of course only requires 21 days, and allows same day voter registration, something Republicans seem to be opposing these days.)


Of course, the Republicans are screaming 'foul!', calling it partisan, but the reality is that in the AG GOP primary, the whole issue of residency and voting elsewhere was raised by the other GOP candidate.  It was of course, as so often happens with tea baggers, part of a purity test of sorts:

The two Republicans have taken potshots at each other for weeks questioning each others’ conservative credentials and political experience. In addition, third party groups have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the race.

Rutledge led the ticket in the May 20 Republican primary with 47% of the vote, while Sterling finished the night with 39% support heading into a June 10 statewide run-off.

On Sunday (June 1), Sterling rolled out new charges that Rutledge had voted in Democratic primaries from 1998 through 2008, had not voted in any state elections in 2010 and 2012, and had donated to the Democratic Party of Arkansas at one time in the past.

Rutledge fired back saying Sterling represented in his legal practice a company peddling pornography, an act she says contradicts his Christian and family values platform as well as should be troubling for someone seeking office to oversee a division dedicated to Internet predators.

Rutledge says she did vote in those Democratic primaries on her record — some in Independence County, some in Pulaski County. In the earlier years, she voted for Democratic friends and colleagues running for prosecutor positions and judgeships when Arkansas had partisan elections in those offices and Republican primaries were largely limited to Northwest Arkansas. Judicial elections became non-partisan in 2002, while prosecutors just moved to non-partisan status in the 2014 cycle.

Rutledge’s voting history, obtained through public records from the Pulaski County Clerk’s office, shows she did vote in the 2008 GOP Presidential primary (she says she cast a vote for Mike Huckabee) as well as this year’s 2014 primary. She consistently voted in general elections from 1996 through 2008.

Sterling has also pointed out that Rutledge made a contribution to the Democratic Party of Arkansas in 2007. Records show that Rutledge did contribute $104.50 to the DPA early that year, which she says was her payment for a ticket to Gov. Mike Beebe’s inaugural ball.
And as noted in the most excellent Brad Blog:
Leslie Rutledge, the Republican candidate for Attorney General in Arkansas, has been discovered to have been registered to vote in multiple states in addition to Arkansas, and even voted by absentee ballot in Arkansas' general election in November of 2008 --- after she had registered to vote in Washington D.C. [PDF] in July of the same year.
I'm smelling an unusually strong stink of conservative hypocrisy along with some potential voter fraud charges, and removal from ballots this election cycle - involuntarily.  Even for Republicans, how much ignorance can you plead?



Monday, September 22, 2014

Republicans do not want and do not support FAIR elections

Last Thursday, Kris Kobach, the radical right wing extremists Secretary of State for Kansas, lost a state Supreme Court battle regarding the 2014 ballot in that state.  Kobach tried to keep the Democratic candidate from withdrawing from the election.  The state Supreme Court voted unanimously,regardless of political preference or affiliation,  that Kobach did NOT have that ‘discretion’ to treat the Democratic candidate differently from other candidates.
from the Powerline blog:
The cited statute provides:
Any person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they [sic] are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such person’s name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds.
Taylor having made no acknowledgment of incapability to serve, Kobach ruled that Taylor would stay on the ballot as the Democratic nominee this November. This point of the whole Democratic charade being to get Taylor off the ballot and get Democrats behind Orman, Taylor followed up with an appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court. Having made his withdrawal “pursuant to” the statute, Taylor argued that he incorporated the statutory requirement of incapability by reference. This week the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously agreed:
We conclude the plain meaning of “pursuant to K.S.A. 25-306b(b)” contained in Taylor’s letter effectively declares he is incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected. Simply put, the phrase operates as an incorporation by reference of this particular requirement.

Powerline blog, a conservative site, doesn’t like the court decision, never mind that it treats all candidates alike rather than different, rather than giving preference to one political party over another.

What has been largely absent from the media coverage is that Kobach quietly skulked away with his tail between his legs on Saturday, and complied with federal and state law:
From Politico:

TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has directed county election officials to start mailing ballots to voters overseas Saturday without having a Democratic nominee listed for the U.S. Senate.
The Democrat dropped out of the race against three-term Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, pushed out by some party leaders who wanted to improve the chances that independent candidate Greg Orman would defeat Roberts.
Kobach spokeswoman Samantha Poetter confirmed Friday that the secretary of state had decided against delaying the mailing of ballots to military personnel and other U.S. citizens overseas. He had said Thursday that the deadline for starting the mailings would be pushed back to Sept. 27.

Why was that an attempt to cheat by Kobach and the Republicans?

That would be because the incumbent Republican is losing, but is losing by LESS if the vote is split three ways rather than two.

In response to losing the court battle to try to treat the Democratic candidate differently,  and contrary to the precedent of what was acceptable withdrawal, Kobach then tried to insist he would mess with the federally mandated requirements for mailing out ballots to those who serve in the military.  Kobach came up with all kinds of crack pot ideas.  He ORDERED the Democratic party to come up with a replacement candidate.  The Secretary of State has no legal authority to do that.  Kobach then claimed he would delay mailing ballots, mandated by federal law, and that he would include a disclaimer, followed by a subsequent ballot.  Kobach also claimed he had a waiver from the DOJ to exempt him from following the law — but the DOJ was clear he did not have any such waiver, and had never requested one either.  Then Kobach claimed he was going to move back the election in Kansas to the Tuesday FOLLOWING the Tuesday in November on which the REST of the country holds our elections.  Yeah……..Kobach doesn’t have the authority as SOS to do that either.

Kobach, also the author of the infamous ‘papers please’ Arizona legislation, likes to make up sh*t, and to try at least, to give himself powers that the government does not legitimately have — all to try to cheat in holding the Kansas state and federal election this November so as to favor Republicans.  The fact that incumbent Senator Roberts is doing so poorly is part of the shift among pundits and political predictors and pollsters that give a slight to hefty majority chance for the Democrats to hold the Senate in this off-year /  not-presidential election.

Had ANY Democrat ANYWHERE EVER made statements, claims, or attempts like Kris Kobach, SOS of Kansas, Conservative heads would be exploding, and the screams from Conservatives, especially from the tea bagger (Kobash is a tea partier) and smaller-government crowd would be so loud, it could be heard on the moon.

So far as I can find — NOT A PEEP out of Conservatives about how TERRIBLE, how blatantly ILLEGAL, the efforts have been by Kris Kobach.  Apparently the ‘values party’ crowd has very hypocritical partisan-selective values.  In other words, they don’t give a DAMN about free and fair elections, they don’t give a damn about cheating.  They only care about winning, no matter how dirty, no matter how much they abuse government authority to do so, no matter how unethical.

In fact, Kobach remains popular, and as of a few weeks ago was tied, with the Democratic candidate for Secretary of State, a former Republican, Jean Schodorf.
…the latest poll data released September 8, shows that if the election were held today, Schodorf has a 3 percent advantage: 46 percent to Kobach’s 43 percent. Eleven percent of likely voters polled remain undecided. The margin of error is +/- 4.2 percent.
Secretary of State Kris Kobach holds 70 percent of the Republican vote, while Jean Schodorf holds 86 percent of the Democratic vote.

Rachel Maddow summed up the Kobach conduct last week, accurately and consientiously:




Politico makes no reference to any disclaimer, any mailing of additional ballots, etc. Further just under 100 inaccurate ballots were mailed out on last Thursday, however, WITH the name of the Democratic candidate printed on them. Those incorrect ballots WILL need to be replaced.

The capacity for Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State to screw up an election, to act in a manner which is apparently illegal and unethical, and which is likely to run afoul of the DOJ, is nothing less than spectacular.