Anti-Government Fringe Goes Capitalists with their own dating site and merchandising.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Anti-Government Conspiratorial Theories and How To Make Money:


I watched a documentary last night about the current KKK and how they have become much more sophisticated in manipulating political will. They have teamed up with the gun manufacturers and the NRA so they can get even more military weapons. Today the organization has also joined with the Libertarians in the push to over throw the government.

They have gone far beyond the racial, ethnic and religious bigotry. They want to eliminate the current government and install one that deports everyone that is not white-European decent protestant, regardless of citizenship status.

They learned that marches in the street didn't push their cause, but alliances with these other factions did.  Their evangelical Protestant position fit very nicely with those religious extremists in also over throwing the government to install a theocracy.

There have been members of the KKK in our congress since post civil war. But they were very few and spread between the two political parties and didn't have enough support to push much in the way of legislation, except the anti-immigration. But then they learned that the GOP was an easy vehicle to manipulate with their coalition to drive legislation they want.

When we elected the first black president, they and so many quiet racists went insane with fear and hate.  The Klan's and other similar organization's membership has shot up to levels they've never seen before and they have taken full advantage of that growth. They now know how to lobby fearful senators and congressmembers both with political power through their coalition, money and fear of assassination.

When you add the Koch brothers money and organization, ALEC, the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian caucus of the GOP now called the Tea Party with the money of the Christian Coalition and add to this mix the anti-regulation, anti-tax Wall Street backers, we end up with a very dangerous political party whose only goal is to bring down the government.

So here is another dot to add to the many connecting dots of the underlying movements that are plaguing our culture and nation today.

HOUSE GOP WOULD KICK 280,000 CHILDREN OFF SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM TO PROTECT TAX FOR MILLIONAIRES

By Guest Blogger on Apr 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Our guest blogger is Melissa Boteach, director of Half In Ten at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.


House Republicans recently proposed cuts to nutrition assistance that will kick 280,000 low-income children off automatic enrollment in the Free School Lunch and Breakfast Program. Those same kids and 1.5 million other people will also lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamp benefits) that help them afford food at home.

Ten years’ worth of these nutrition cuts could be prevented for the price of one year of tax cuts on 3,340 multimillion dollar estates that House Republicans are protecting in their budget.

On April 18 the House Agriculture Committee passed a bill cutting over $33 billion from SNAP over the next decade. About one-third of these cuts ($11.5 billion) comes from putting restrictions on “categorical eligibility,” a provision that enables states to better coordinate between programs and improves access to assistance for low-income families.

By restricting this provision, the bill would kick an average of 1.8 million low-income people a year off of food aid and end automatic enrollment in free school meals for 280,000 children in struggling families.
The Republican budget sells this bill as an effort to “reduce lower‐priority spending” to avert military cuts that will otherwise take place in January 2013 due to the debt deal agreed to last summer. But when it comes to reducing the deficit, it’s clear the House would rather ask low-income kids and families struggling against hunger to foot the bill than asking multimillion-dollar estates to pay their fair share.

Case in point: As part of the 2010 tax-cut compromise, House Republicans insisted on including a tax cut on multimillion dollar estates, adding an estimated $11.5 billion to the deficit this year alone. That’s the same amount they’re now claiming is necessary to cut from low-income families through these restrictions.

By making it more difficult for low-income schoolchildren to access school breakfast and lunch, this bill will likely increase child hunger, which is associated with worse educational outcomes and higher long-term health costs. Both of these trends affect our economy and our deficits over the long run.

We should reconsider reduced spending on “lower priority” items — a.k.a breakfast, lunch, and dinner for low-income children — and instead adopt a deficit-reduction approach that asks everyone to pay their fair share—including multimillion-dollar estates.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
MY THOUGHTS:

What we are learning about how the brain is wired and the mental behaviors of individuals is revealing that our compassion and empathy for others is almost predetermined in our genes. Nature if you will.  However there is also a nurture component as well. Even if  you have the gene for fear, the need for strict order in your life, have limited ability to comprehend abstract thoughts, if you are nurtured in a compassionate and empathetic environment, you could overcome to a controllable degree the fear and strict order wiring of the brain. The brain can be somewhat adaptive to nurturing in certain areas of the brain. And the converse is also possible.

But if a person has the genes to cause this state of fear and need for strict order and is nurtured in the same environment, they are incapable of compassion or empathy, they are the Ayn Rands of the world. They are the despots, the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Idi Amins, and the many other dictators throughout history.

This is the only logical reason that individuals who share these traits, fear and lack of empathy, vote against their self interest. They are emotionally incapable of researching the facts, using critical thinking in their evaluation of the information they find and applying that knowledge in their decision of what to do.

These are the same people who take their religious scripture as absolute facts, almost obsessed obedience to their religion, and reject any other factual data, such as science, that contradicts there religious thoughts.  Therefore, the two, ideology and theology merge so nicely in the Republican Party's governance plan.

I Would Laugh Too, Were I Not Weeping; The World Is Laughing At America and Scared At The Same Time.

By Hrafnkell Haraldsson  February 24, 2012

“There will be Satanic forces…We are not… up just against human beings, to beat them in elections. We’re going to be coming up against spiritual warfare.”  - Pat Robertson, Road to Victory, 1991

“Satan has his sights on the United States of America.” Rick Santorum,  Ave Maria University, 2008.

Why has my country become the laughingstock of the world? Well, look at the comments above: you need look no further than Rick Santorum, who embodies all of the craziness of America’s Christian fundamentalists, a guy whose worldview, frighteningly, most closely matches that of the majority of Republicans. As Jason Easley wrote, it’s a chilling thought. Santorum is telling the world that Satan is attacking America. Gay people destroyed our economy. Fixing marriage will somehow fix everything. And this guy is currently the Republican front runner. How far we have come from the heady days of Barry Goldwater!

There once was a time when Americans could feel smugly superior to the rest of the world because of our power, our technology, our industriousness, and our science. We represented the future. Now, we wake up in the year 2012 and find ourselves on the express train to the thirteenth century. Rather than science we have superstition; we have thrown out the germ theory of medicine to which so much is owed and replaced it with prayer. People laugh at us. And they should. Because Rick Santorum wants America to represent the past.

I would laugh too, were I not weeping.

Look at what one of our two major political parties is telling voters:

• When God is angry, he kills birds. Why is anyone’s guess.
• When God doesn’t want to kill birds he can send tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis and other things we once knew as natural disasters to do some truly obscene Old Testament-style slaughter, killing the innocent with the guilty.
• When it doesn’t rain, the drought is not to be explained by way of the science of meteorology. How can it be, when supposedly the only cure for a drought is prayer? Never mind that this has the same success rate as sacrificing virgins.
• Gas prices are also controlled by God. Apparently, he makes them high when he is pissed off about something. He will lower them, we are told, if enough people pray for him to do so. Never mind that it never actually works (see the comment above about virgin sacrifice).
• You can pray abortion out of existence. So far it’s legislation that’s stripping women of their reproductive rights, not God. The level of hypocrisy here is staggering; at least take those offensive signs down or put your money where your mouth is.
• People don’t exist because of a sperm meeting an egg but because God decided that a person should exist.
• Zygotes are people – but women are not. How else to explain the near constant of an embryo’s life being worth more than the potential mother’s?
• Global warming isn’t taking place because it can’t be taking place: God said he won’t destroy us by flood again, etc. God will take care of us.
• The economy is not based on or governed by economic principles but by God. Farewell greed, not to mention supply and demand. If we pray hard enough and repent, God will fix the economy too.
• God decides which countries will be powerful and successful. He once chose Rome. Now he has chosen the U.S.
• God chooses rulers for countries, not voters. Inexplicable is his choice of several competing politicians. Perhaps a divine personality disorder might explain it? Again, if they really believe this, why do they bother to vote?
• Abstinence works despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary (but it has to work because contraception is evil). Yeah, abstinence is the only 100% certain form of birth control but you have to practice it 100% of the time and that’s where the problems begin. Ask Bristol Palin.
• Gay marriage will somehow destroy heterosexual marriage, an argument as illogical as their claim that neutrality toward matters of religion is actually an attack on religion.

These are beliefs the rest of the world began to abandon with the Renaissance and most had been pretty thoroughly rejected by the time of the European Enlightenment. There is a reason God scored a big goose-egg in the Declaration of Independence and in the U.S. Constitution.

We know the claims made in the above list are a bunch of hooey. We know why there are animal (including bird) die-offs. We know what causes various natural disasters, including tornadoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis; there are no mysteries there. It is no coincidence that earthquakes can take place on both sides of the Pacific – the Ring of Fire is explanation enough – pinning it on God is absurd when you have tectonic plates shifting. We also know what controls the price of gas and God has nothing to do with it. Ditto for the creation of life. We know where babies come from and it’s not God but vigorous and often mutually enthusiastic sex. The list above is crap and the modern world understands it as such and so there is no mystery at all why people are laughing at my country; it is no less than it deserves.

It is Americans, after all, who allowed the situation to get as bad as it has. There is no excuse at all for 2010.

How did this happen? How did the most advanced industrialized nation on earth, one committed to liberty, come to the brink of a superstitious, backward-looking theocracy?

A small group of racist white evangelicals saw their position of privilege begin to erode, and they panicked. The election of a black progressive Christian as president while a cause for celebration for forward-looking Americans (and most foreigners) was as the sounding of the gong of doom to these white fundamentalists. Here was a black guy who had the audacity to become president when he should have been serving them their breakfast, taking care of their garden, or doing maintenance at their summer cottage. At the very best he should be the White House gardener, not the occupant of the Oval Office. We all knew racism still existed; but many of us weren’t prepared for the shameless audacity with which so many conservatives expressed it.

Look (and let’s be honest about this): it doesn’t matter what President Obama does; it never did. Because no matter what he does or doesn’t do, he will always be a black man and the secret truth at the heart of conservatism is that only white Christian people (and then only the right type of Christian because mainline protestants are “gone from the world of Christianity”) are “real” Americans. America was made by God for white Christians and if the First Amendment doesn’t establish Christianity as a state religion than it damn well ought to!

Fundamentalists of course love what they’re hearing. That goes without saying. It feeds all their preconceptions: They are being told exactly what they want to hear, they are being told exactly what they already want to believe or do believe. Group psychosis has never been more popular since the Nuremberg rallies. The truly sad part is that so many otherwise intelligent liberals are still in denial regarding the threat to our democracy posed by these lunatic theocrats. All of them should pay a visit toTheocracyWatch. Read the entire site and then come back and tell me we’re panicking over nothing.

And here’s the deal whether you want to hear it or not: if the theocrats win in 2012, the Great American Experiment, born with such hope and optimism for an enlightened human future, may end like the snuffing out of a guttering flame. Like so many world empires before, the American empire will no longer be a culture in which people live but a place future scholars will study. For the American people things will be far worse, not academic at all, for we will have lost the flame that lights the demon-haunted darkness Carl Sagan once wrote about, and descend once more into an era best lost to history.

4 New Hamphire Laws that are in the TWILIGHT ZONE!

GOP Lawmakers Pass Bill Making Public School Curriculum Optional

By Marie Diamond on Jan 5, 2012 at 9:20 am

As the country shifts its attention from the Iowa caucus to the upcoming primary in New Hampshire, the state’s Republican legislators are busy passing some of the most radically conservative laws in the country. Today the GOP-controlled Senate passed HB 542, which allows parents to pull their children out of any school lesson that the parent objects to, forcing the school to design an alternative lesson. Their House colleagues approved the measure earlier last year.
The measure is so extreme that even the conservative Union-Leader editorial board denounced it in July:

House Bill 542 would have amended state law to “Require school districts to adopt a policy allowing an exception to specific course material based on a parent’s or legal guardian’s determination that the material is objectionable.” Though that sounds appealing at first blush, it is so broad that it would make public education essentially an a la carte menu.
It is true that public schools are too inflexible and don’t allow enough choice. They would benefit greatly from the competition that comes from charter schools and vouchers. But this bill put the burden on each public school to create a curriculum catered to each family’s individual tastes. Schools would have to provide alternatives to any instruction a family opposed, and a family could oppose anything for any reason. That is neither workable, nor sensible.

The bill will now go to Gov. John Lynch’s (D) desk. Lynch, who vetoed an earlier version of the same bill, is expected to nix it once again. He pointed out in his last veto message that the bill failed to clearly define what material would be objectionable — allowing any parent to withdraw their child for almost any reason.

New Hampshire’s Democratic Party immediately condemned the move, calling it “an unprecedented attack” on “New Hampshire children’s right to a quality education.” “In fact it will end education in New Hampshire as we know it, allowing children to be removed from any lessons their parents choose, algebra, English language arts, health education, American history, the civil or women’s rights movement, science, absolutely anything,” they said.

The party chair pointed out that the bill places an enormous financial burden on cash-strapped towns and cities by requiring school districts to create a unique curriculum for each and every student.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

New Hampshire Republicans Propose Bills That Prevent Police From Protecting Domestic Abuse Victims

By Marie Diamond on Jan 26, 2012 at 1:30 pm

Since the 1970s, New Hampshire police have operated under a progressive policy for handling domestic violence cases that has saved countless lives. Under current law the presumption is that an arrest will be made when police observe evidence of abuse. They have a large degree of discretion and don’t need to witness the assault firsthand or obtain a legal warrant before they can separate the alleged attacker from his victim.

All that will change if Republicans get their way. The state’s GOP legislators are pushing two bills that will reverse a half century of progress, the Concord Monitor reports:

Domestic violence is no longer taken lightly legally or by society. That’s the way it should be, but two bills under consideration by this most unusual of legislatures, would undo that progress and put lives in danger. Both deserve a speedy defeat.

House Bill 1581 would turn the clock back 40 years to an age when a police officer could not make an arrest in a domestic violence case without first getting a warrant unless he or she actually witnessed the crime. That’s an exceedingly dangerous change. Consider the following scenario, one outlined for lawmakers by retired Henniker police chief Tim Russell:
An officer is called to a home where she sees clear evidence that an assault has occurred. The furniture is overturned, the children are sobbing, and the face of the woman of the house is bruised and bleeding. It’s obvious who the assailant was, but the officer arrived after the assault occurred. It’s a small department, and no one else on the force is available to keep the peace until the officer finds a judge or justice of the peace to issue a warrant. The officer leaves, and the abuser renews his attack with even more ferocity, punishing his victim for having called for help. [...]

It’s impossible to say how many lives the policy, in place since the 1970s, has saved or how many injuries it’s prevented. If they adopt House Bill 1581, lawmakers might find out, but the price paid could be extraordinarily high.

The other bill Republicans have proposed, HB 1608, limits judges’ ability to order the arrest of someone who has violated a domestic violence restraining order by contacting or abusing the person named in the order. It would also prevent judges from ordering defendants to surrender their weapons or block them from buying guns.

Police say the bill stops them from intervening to protect victims. For instance, they would be stripped of their power to arrest someone who is threatening to use violence against a victim or child. It’s unclear why New Hampshire Republicans have set their sights on repealing protections for abuse victims when promised to focus on economic priorities.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

New Hampshire GOP Bill Mandates That New Laws Find Their Origin In 1215 English Magna Carta

By Marie Diamond on Jan 4, 2012 at 3:10 pm

New Hampshire Republicans are taking textual originalism to a whole new level: three lawmakers have proposed a bill that requires that all legislation find its origin not in the U.S. constitution, but an English document crafted in 1215.

When the legislature reconvenes this month, Republicans want their colleagues to justify many new bills with a direct quote from the 800-year-old Magna Carta:

House Bill 1580 is the product of such a brainstorming session this summer between three freshman House Republicans: Bob Kingsbury of Laconia, Tim Twombly of Nashua and Lucien Vita of Middleton. The eyebrow-raiser, set to be introduced when the Legislature reconvenes next month, requires legislation to find its origin in an English document crafted in 1215.

“All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived,” is the bill’s one sentence.

The Magna Carta, while famed as the first major declaration of rights under English monarchy, is a bit outdated in its actual prose.

The Magna Carta is indisputably an important historical document, with ideas about liberty that inspired America’s founders. But as the Concord Monitor points out, the substance of the document is fixated on the tedium of feudal times, and has little if any relevance to modern American life.

New Hampshire lawmakers might have trouble applying passages like, “We shall straightway return the son of Llewelin and all the Welsh hostages,” or, “If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age.”

One of the bill’s sponsors admitted that he wasn’t terribly familiar with the actual text, and mainly saw the measure as an homage. New Hampshire Democratic Party spokesman Ray Buckley said he was “mostly speechless” when he heard about the bill. “I appreciate all the hard work the Republican legislators are putting into the effort to make them look like extremists,” he said. “Saves us the trouble.”

Conservatives have long prided themselves on being constitutional “purists” who want to strip government down to the basic form they say was laid out in the country’s founding document. But requiring textual justification from another country’s founding document, which has no legal history or authority in the U.S., is a curious extension of that principle.

As the country’s focus shifts from the Iowa caucus to the more influential New Hampshire primary, it’s worth noting that the state’s Republicans apparently trying to repeal not just the 20th century “welfare state,” or even the 20th century, but the modern era entirely.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

New Hampshire Republicans Propose Bill To Eliminate Workers’ Lunch Breaks

By Pat Garofalo on Feb 8, 2012 at 3:00 pm

  

New Hampshire’s GOP legislature has come up with all manner of absurd bills recently, including a proposal making public school curriculum optional, another to prevent police from protecting domestic abuse victims, and even a measure mandating that new laws be based on the Magna Carta. Some of the Granite State’s GOP lawmakers have even proposed doing away with the law that requires employers to give their workers time off for lunch, under the rationale that all employers will simply grant lunch breaks out of the goodness of their hearts:

“This is an unneeded law,” [Republican state Representative Kyle Jones] said. “If I was to deny one of my employees a break, I would be in a very bad position with the company’s human resources representative. If you consider that this is a very easy law to follow in that everyone already does it, then why do we need it? Our constituents have already proven that they have enough common sense to do this on their own.”

The bill’s sponsor, state representative J.R. Hoell, argued that companies failing to provide lunch breaks would be shamed over social media, thus rendering the law unnecessary. “If they are not letting people have lunch, they could put it out though the news media, though social media. I don’t think that abusive behavior would continue, the way communications are today,” he said.

Of course, not every employer can be counted to to follow even the easiest of requirements to look after workers’ health and rights. Back in 2005, Walmart was forced to pay $172 million for denying workers their lunch breaks. Pyramid Breweries Inc. settled a case in 2008 for $1.5 million. Just a few months ago, California ordered Embassy Suites to pay workers tens of thousands of dollars for forcing them to skip breaks.

“The fact that in 2012, I would be even sitting in front of the Labor Committee talking about eliminating the lunch hour is outrageous,” said Mark MacKenzie, New Hampshire’s state AFL-CIO representative.

“People should at least be able to be given the opportunity to eat.” Fortunately, the bill does not seem too appealing to most of the New Hampshire legislature, and the state House’s labor committee adjourned yesterday without voting on it.