There was yet another Republican presidential candidates debate last night conducted by ABC and Yahoo.

Here is the transcript….

Same old…same old, really. However, the topic of gay marriage came up.

Question….“Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?”

GINGRICH: Well, I think what I would say is that we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends occur. For example, you’re in a hospital. If there are visitation hours, should you be allowed to stay there? There ought to be ways to designate that.

You want to have somebody in your will. There ought to be ways to designate that. But it is a huge jump from being understanding and considerate and concerned, which we should be, to saying we therefore are going to institute the sacrament of marriage as though it has no basis.

The sacrament of marriage was based on a man and woman, has been for 3,000 years. Is at the core of our civilization. And it’s something worth protecting and upholding. And I think protecting and upholding that doesn’t mean you have to go out and make life miserable for others, but it does mean you make a distinction between a historic sacrament of enormous importance in our civilization and simply deciding it applies everywhere and it’s just a civil right.

It’s not. It is a part of how we define ourselves. And I think that a marriage between a man and a woman is part of that definition.

Definition of the word sacrament:….a visible sign of an inward grace, especially one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord's Supper; the sacraments of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction.

Gingrich is seeking the office of the presidency of a nation which governs itself, at least theoretically, on the dictates of the Constitution. The separation of religion and state is part and parcel of the laws governing our secular state. The first amendment grants freedom to all U.S. citizens to practice any form of religion they so desire without governemntal restrictions and/or interference…and the first amendment also guarantees citizens freedom from governmental "establishment" of religion. Not one or the other….both, simultaneously.

Newt Gingrich, clearly, would use the power of the government to "establish" the "sacrament" of marriage as the sole entitlement of heterosexual couples. As far as our government is concerned, establishing laws for religious sacramental reasons is entirely lawless….and yet that's what Newt Gingrich plans on doing should he be elected president.

Because of the constant drumbeat from the right that America is a "Christian nation" and that evil and hellbound liberals are out to destroy Christianity…..while assisting Muslims in setting up their worldwide Caliphate to destroy America…..we need some clarity on this issue.

Newt Gingrich helps us out with that clarity…..from last night's debate….

GINGRICH: I just want to raise — since we’ve spent this much time on these issues — I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?

The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.

These are the words of a man who believes that Christians and Christian groups are "entitled" in ways that no other groups are entitled. In Newt's entirely phony answer, he conveniently leaves out the part where the Catholic Church takes federal tax dollars. The Catholic Church takes federal tax dollars to assist in their adoption services as well as other charitable services to the poor and needy.

Gingrich knows that when a religious group takes federal money they are bound to obey all federal laws with the use of that money. Part of the federal laws the Church is bound to obey, when taking tax dollars, (also known as federal welfare) is discrimination laws. But that's the exact issue that Gingrich says the Church is "entitled" to disobey. Gingrich is telling Americans that Christians and Christian groups stand outside our national system of secular laws. They, alone, deserve entitlements that others never qualify for. In this case, the Church is especially entitled to willfully violate federal discrimination laws WHILE also sucking at the secular government teat.

Why? Apparently, because the Church is in charge of "sacraments"…..and those "sacraments" are based on a higher authority than our nation's Constitution and rule of law.

Gingrich's words are the words of a person seeking higher religious office….not the presidency of the most powerful secular country on earth. They are the words of a bigot who justifies his bigotry by insisting (wrongly) that the Church, because it controls the keys to the "sacraments", the holy things, is entitled to violate federal law with immunity.

The Christian Church is not being persecuted and/or singled out for special governmental punishment, as theocons tell us. Instead, many Christians and Christian Churchs have simply grown accustomed to a misplaced sense of entitlement.

As I mentioned the other day, the Iowa GOP caucuses are not representative of the larger, American electorate….and that's actually a good thing. Last night Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum ended in a dead heat for first place in the Iowa GOP caucuses. Romney received 30,015 caucus votes (24.6%)….Santorum with 30,007 votes (24.5%)…Ron Paul took in 26,219 votes (21.4%).

Iowa conservatives, apparently, have not settled on a presidential candidate. In winning by a photo finish, Romney received the lowest percentage of Iowa caucus votes since Bob Dole took 26% of the Iowa primary in 1996. As you may remember…Dole went on to take a thorough asskicking at the hands of incumbent president Bill Clinton that year.

I think it's safe to say that Republican voters are all over the board this election cycle. Not united…would be another way of saying it. As we've seen, Mitt Romney is not trusted by conservative voters to be an authentic conservative. Even though Romney is seen by many as the most electable candidate Republicans have to offer, his openness to compromise, his "liberal" past, and his Mormonism make him less than palatable to about half of conservative voters.

That explains the Keystone Kop Klown Kar parade we've been witnessing for almost a year now. Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich…each getting their turn driving the other Klowns around on their way to the first primaries. Conservative voter dissatisfaction with Romney is also seen in the pitifully desperate cries for the obese, bigmouth Chris Christie and/or W's brother Jebby to jump into the GOP race.

Anyway, now it's Rick Santorum's turn behind the wheel. Santorum is the guy who, in 2006, lost his senate seat to fellow Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey….by 19%. Nevertheless, Santorum worked hard in Iowa. His hard work paid off. Good on him. Santorum will not be the GOP candidate this fall…you can bet on that…but Santorum's strong finish last night again illustrates the divisions within what's left of the conservative movement in America.

Yesterday I pointed out Santorum's apparent problem with "blacks" and government assistance. Today,I would like to point out Rick Santorum's problem with modernity in general. In October, Santorum told Shane Vander Hart, editor of CaffeinatedThoughts.com….

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Contraception? Really?

Santorum is seen as the social conservative in the race. Social conservatives make up a large percentage of Republican voters. Social conservatives say that their most important issue is ending abortion rights in America. The best way for sexually active women to avoid unwanted pregnancies is…..wait for it…..contraception. Yet, Rick Santorum, social conservative darling, claims that contraception is dangerous.

Why is contraception dangerous according to Santorum? "It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

Contraception availability….and the choice women still have to determine their reproductive futures….runs "counter to how things are supposed to be."

This is the guy who basically tied Mitt Romney for first place last night in the Iowa GOP caucuses.

Just as I appreciated Santorum's honesty when he talked about how he, and many other conservatives, saw "blacks"…so too, I appreciate Santorum's honesty about contraception. For forever I've thought that the anti-choice movement in America was more about anti-women sexuality than anything else. In Santorum's recent remarks about contraception, he only confirms what I've always thought.

Access to abortion and contraception is understood by many social conservatives as a "license" to have sex. What's wrong with sex, you ask. Nothing, as long as sex is conducted the way "things are supposed to be." Which to Santorum means: only within the parameters of marriage….

SANTORUM: [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.

Santorum's view is a religious view….based on religious teachings. In secular America we do not organize our society or our laws based on religious views. Santorum, and his fellow social conservatives, may think that sex outside of marriage, and not for the purpose of procreation, are not how "things are supposed to be"….but that train left the station a very long time ago….and it ain't coming back.

99 percent of women 15-44 in America have used at least one contraception method.

Remember the conservative drooling over defunding Planned Parenthood? Santorum's thinking on this matter helps to explain why. According to social conservatives like Santorum, if women have access to contraception and abortion, then they will consider that access as a license to be, I guess, slutty and promiscuous. And that is just not how "things are supposed to be."

For a long time I have been saying that the anti-abortion and anti-contraception movement has nothing to do with fetuses and "life"….but rather an unhealthy authoritarian attitude towards sexually active women. More than anything, anti-choicers are anti-women. Santorum represents a dying breed of outdated culture warriors who still want to keep women in the kitchen….pregnant. It's god's way…they tell us.

Proving that Ohio's SB5 was always about crushing unions, conservative sore losers in the state have quickly regrouped and announced a new plan to…..crush unions.

A new group called Ohioans for Workplace Freedom announced Thursday it is working to collect at least 386,000 valid signatures to get the measure on the ballot, possibly as soon as next November.

“Polling shows overwhelmingly that Ohioans think you shouldn’t have to join a union,” said Tom Zawistowski, of Kent, who is president of the Portage County Tea Party and executive director of the Ohio Liberty Council, which supports the new effort.

“A lot of people in the patriot movement feel this was a key component of Senate Bill 5 that never came out.”

The "key component" that Mr. Executive Tea Party Director is referring to, as Mr. Zawistowski made clear in his e-mail to TEA comrades before the SB5 referendum, is defeating Democrats and electing Republicans at the ballot box by minimizing union funding for Democratic campaigns.

Mr. Zawistowski, apparently, thinks that Ohio voters didn't know what they were doing this past Tuesday when they sent John Kasich's union busting bill to a timely death.

The "patriot movement." Funny. That's what conservatives call union busting thugs now, "the patriot movement." Radical Ohio conservatives, reactionaries actually, never cared one whit about the Ohio budget when crafting SB5….and this blogger repeatedly clarified that point. Now, the Ohio "patriot" losers are responding to a 61%-39% trouncing by announcing they'll push to bust unions in a different way.

"Right to work." Never has Orwellianism been put so succinctly.

22 states have passed "right-to-work" laws. All were passed for the purpose of busting unions. Busting unions hurts Democrats and so it's no surprise that mostly southern states have jumped on the Orwellian bandwagon called "right to work."

Allow The Reverend to set the record straight. "Right to work" laws are welfare laws. "Right to work" laws amount to creating an entirely new crop of welfare workers entitled to special treatment in the workplace. "Right to work" laws are anti-democratic. Here's why…

If a majority of workers in a workplace voted democratically to install a union to represent them in collective bargaining negotiations….employees at that workplace who opt out of belonging to the union or paying union dues still receive the benefits from union bargaining without having to "pay" for the representation that negotiated those benefits. Not only do "right to work" employees freeload on the backs of others in their workplace, they also thumb their noses at the majority-rule, democratic process.

Majority rule is okay for almost all elections, according to "right to work" defenders, except labor representation voting. That seems….I don't know….inconsistent. What it really is….is the doctrine of the whiners. The doctrine that says, 'we're right, everybody else is wrong, and we're willing to sh*tcan the democratic process because we're right.' Infants act like that. Adults accept the premise that in an imperfect world, majority-rule voting is an integral part of the democratic process.

And tell me, why should the person working next to you, doing the same job as you, be treated special? Why should he/she be entitled in some unique way to take full advantage of what others have worked hard to accomplish, without contributing a penny to those who have worked hard to acquire those benefits?

"We’re not against unions,” Zawistowski said. “You should be free to join unions. We’re about individual freedoms.”

Doubletalk. SB5, as Zawistowski himself admitted, was not about "individual freedoms" but, instead, crushing unions so that Democrats would be starved of campaign funding from unions. SB5 was purely political and Mr. TEA Party admitted that. With a new "right to work" initiative for Ohio, Zawistowski and his "patriots" are simply looking to crush their political opponents in the state by other means.

So, no….Ohio TEAs ARE against unions. No, Ohio TEAs, despite the disingenuous rhetoric, are not "about individual freedoms", just their own freedom to crush union workers.

To what end? TEAs are 'roided up supply siders without the intellectual ass to persuade voters that working for less is really, honestly, better for you…..and Ohio. TEAs sound like they are the lead horsemen in the race to the bottom for labor. For "the patriot movement", Ohio workers cannot emulate low-pay China fast enough. Crushing unions through any cockamamie "right to work" doubletalk referendums will only mean that Ohio workers throughout the state will all work for less. Everywhere "right to work" laws exist, workers earn less on average than non right to work states.

Ohio dead-ender conservatives won't take no for an answer apparently. TEA inspired Ohio GOP'ers, led by a Fox News contributor masquerading as a governor, and fresh off a thrashing at the ballot box last Tuesday, are still hellbent on damaging the economic lives of average working Ohioans by sabotaging unions who contribute to their political opponent's campaigns.

Sorry, Ohioans don't want to work for less, nor do they want to abolish unions. They just got done telling the TEAs that very truth on Tuesday.

Along with Ohio's SB5 referendum vote in Ohio today…..is Mississippi's referendum vote on "fetal personhood." Voters in Mississippi today will be deciding whether they believe all fertilized human eggs are, in fact, "persons"…and thus entitled to all the protections guaranteed to all other U.S."persons."

Of course, this Mississippi referendum has nothing to do with granting personhood rights to fertilized human eggs…it has to do with denying all Mississippi women the right to choose their own reproductive lives. Ending abortion….that's what the poor southern state is putting to a vote today.

As with Ohio's Issue 3, if Mississippian's "personhood" referendum passes, it will not become the law of the United States and, most likely, will not become effective law even in Mississippi because of the court battles which will surely follow. But that could be the goal of radicalized forced-pregnancy conservatives in Mississippi. Even though Roe v Wade forces no female citizen to choose abortion, forced-pregnancy enthusiasts in Mississippi would force all pregnant women, whether they wanted to bear a child or not, to have no other choice.

To stimulate a bit of discussion on the "forced pregnancy" movement in Mississippi….I encourage you to read this short piece.

Hullabaloo's David Atkins sets forward 4 group-think examples which seek to encompass where the "passion" behind the forced pregnancy lobby comes from..

1) A small minority of the forced pregnancy movement are….

..seriously hardcore misogynists who want women to be little more than vessels to carry babies. This is actually a fairly small minority of the movement, but these are the folks who are against not only abortion, but birth control and abortion even in cases of rape or incest. These people would still be branding women with scarlet letters if they had the chance. The abortion issue isn't about babies for them. It's about controlling women and sexuality.

2) Pregnancy as punishment for having sex….a variation on #1…

The pro-punishment crowd that sees sex as inherently evil and carries around a softer version of the first group's misogyny.

3) The Christian conservatives who actually believe a god breathes a soul into every fertilized human egg at…fertilization.

The actual Bible-thumper crowd. A lot of these people obviously overlap with groups 1 and 2, but there is a segment of people who are legitimately convinced that all these little eggs and fetuses are imbued with a soul by the magic Creator, and that there is an unsung massacre ongoing everyday on a par with the Nazi Holocaust.

4) Those who are only following their leaders or role model figures…

…follow along with whatever their "pro-life" pastor, youth group leader or similar charlatan says is the right thing to believe. They don't have strong convictions about these things, but everyone else in their social group seems to have anti-choice beliefs, so they might as well, too.

Atkins goes on to explain what science has to say about this "a fertilized human egg is a person" issue….remember science?

This is what we know: During the period of embryonic development that begins with fertilization and ends with successful implantation, about 50 percent of human conceptions fail to survive. The main reason for this high failure rate is the inability of huge numbers of fertilized eggs to implant.

Either "god" is…well….similar to Hitler…or perhaps a fertilized human egg alone….does not qualify as a person.

Mississippi Governor Barbour has already voiced some concerns about the state's forced pregnancy referendum,….and he's certainly no liberal. Other conservatives have as well.

Let's hope voters in Mississippi pause to reflect on what they are really voting for…..they are voting to force women, against their legal will, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Most Ohioans understand by now the stakes inherent in Ohio Issue 2. A no vote on Ohio's Issue 2 on Tuesday is a vote to repeal SB5, an extremist, anti-labor, GOP-forced bill to end collective bargaining rights of Ohio public employees. Polls are predicting a humiliating loss for LittleJohn Kasich's SB5. Republicans in Ohio…by 60%-40%….are on the wrong side of this issue. Ohio Republican voters are the only voting block in favor of terminating public employee unions. On Tuesday, Democrats and Independent voters are poised to give LittleJohn a good and well-deserved electoral spanking.

Personally, I can hardly wait.

Sure, after Kasich and his band of class warriors are spanked Tuesday, there will most certainly emerge a banty-rooster-cocky Kasich strategy to punish public employees, Democrats and, of course, Ohio's poor and elderly…..as small-minded Republican punks are prone to do when thrashed badly at the polls. But make no mistake, when voters reject SB5 on Tuesday, they will be sending a very strong message to self-radicalized Republicans in Columbus. An SB5 thumping will most definitely be a pre-emptive sign in the electoral road warning of the dangers up ahead for GOP'ers in next November's general election.

Overreaching is never a wise move by politicians. Governor John Kasich, approval rating now in the 30's, is going to re-learn that harsh truth Tuesday night.

Although I have blogged about Ohio's Issue 3 in the past…..it seems as if there are still many folks who are confused by that Issue. And rightly so. That's the intention of Issue 3. To confuse Ohioans. Ohioans are being misinformed by masters of deception artists that a Yes vote on Issue 3 will prevent the mandate to carry health insurance contained in the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) from going into effect in Ohio.

Once again, I will state the truth about Issue 3. No matter what states decide to do, federal law takes precedence over any state law or referendum vote. Really, it's as simple as that. If a federal law, such as the AFA, is ever overturned…it won't be done by individual state voters staggeringly-drunk on TEA. If the AFA is overturned…a big freaking if…..it will be done by our judicial system, the Supreme Court making the final decision.

So, why then….are Ohioans voting yea or nay on the ObamaCare mandate? To answer that question, I would remind readers of what happened in the 2004 election. Fearing a Bush re-election loss in Ohio, Karl Rove encouraged extremist Republicans in the state to bring forth a "bash the unmarried cohabitators…and especially gay cohabitators" referendum as a get-out-the-winger-vote effort. To Ohio's shame, the "bash cohabitators" bill passed and Bush won Ohio and his re-election bid. Cohabitating Ohio gays and heteros were simply used as the bait to entice intolerant, mostly ignorant, conservative voters to come out to the polls to cast their "morality" vote…and while at it….also place a check mark next to Georgie Bush's name.

Something similar is happening with Ohio's Issue 3 this year. Ohio's Issue 3 is the radical right's way of attracting intolerant, ignorant, and often backwards-thinking conservative voters to the polls on Tuesday to ALSO vote in favor of the union busting Issue 2. Just in case that Ohio voters are not thrilled about coming out to vote in class-warfare style against many of their public employee friends and neighbors….Issue 3 was created as "wingnut-voter flypaper."

Let's be clear here. A Yes vote on Issue 3 will not prevent the ObamaCare insurance mandate from going into effect. Ohio voters do not have the legal power to overturn a federal law, only the Supreme Court has that power. If voters would happen to reject the ACA mandate in Ohio…..barring an unlikely overturn ruling from the Supremes….the mandate will still stand and Ohio will still have to comply with all the provisions in the healthcare reform bill.

LittleJohn Kasich knows this, so do all Ohio's elected Republicans.

On Tuesday in Ohio, it's really only about SB5. The only goal of self-radicalized Ohio Republicans and conservatives in Tuesday's election is to bust-up public unions…which in turn….will do damage to future funding for Ohio Democratic efforts. Sensing an Ohio electorate upset with SB5….the Party of No, the Party of the Intolerant, the Party of Class Warfare….dug deep into their craven and cynical bag of political gimmicks, and came up with Issue 3 for the sole purpose of attracting more intolerant voters to the polls to cast a totally meaningless "feel good" vote against the Muslim-Socialist-Kenyan who is our President….AND WHILE DOING SO…also vote in favor of busting unions.

So, don't be confused or misled by deceptive teevee ads….or what your TEA Party relative has been spouting. The "let's bash Obama because it will make us feel good" Issue 3 is only a ruse, a gimmick, a trick.

Issue 3's only reason for being….is as I said….for it's "wingnut-flypaper" power. Don't get caught up in the sticky and ignorant trap which cynical conservative deceivers have set for Ohio voters.

Vote NO on Issues 2 AND 3.

There was a lot of talk over the weekend about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's Mormon religion.

This past weekend brought us the Value Voters Summit in D.C. The gathering is organized and run by mostly far right, conservative evangelical Christian leaders. The Summit's straw vote went to Ron Paul….but the hubbub from the weekend was the bold statement by "Megachurch pastor and Rick Perry supporter Robert Jeffress."

..he (Jeffress) said Mitt Romney was not a real Christian. He added that if Republicans vote for him they are giving credibility to a cult and declared that evangelicals should not support a Mormon.

“I think Mitt Romney is a good, moral man,” Jeffress said in an interview with CNN. “But I think those of us who are born-again followers of Christ should always prefer a competent Christian to a competent non-Christian like Mitt Romney.”

If you recall, I have already explained that evangelical Christians are going to have a very difficult time voting for Mitt Romney for president because of his Mormonism. In the 2008 presidential election, evangelical Christians made up 23% of the total voting electorate and 44% of GOP voters.

Almost half of GOP voters in 2008 were evangelical Christians. As Pastor Jeffress made clear this weekend, evangelicals are being urged to not vote for Mitt Romney because Mormonism is a cult and Mormon members are "non-Christians." Therein lies the problem for Mitt Romney as he pursues the presidency.

According to evangelical Christians, Mormonism is a "cult." Sounds ominous.

But, what is a cult?

a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

This may come as a surprise to some, but Christianity, itself, is a cult…..and is referred to as such by biblical and theological scholars. Christianity, especially as expressed before the Reformation and continued through the worldwide Roman Catholic Church afterwards, has a "particular system of religious worship" with it's own "rites and ceremonies." The Mass…the administering of the "sacraments" through the special priesthood, the statues, the vestments, the incense, the bellringing, the sharing of the "Host"…..make up a "particular system of religious worship" with it's own unique "rites and ceremonies."

And indeed, many evangelical Christians (example:Rev.John Hagee) consider Roman Catholicism to be a "cult" of non-Christians…..but in a slightly different way than Mormonism is regarded as a "cult." When you get into the world of invisible god-beings…it really gets complicated.

To Pastor Jeffress, who addressed the Value Voters Summit crowd…..Mitt Romney may be "competent", but alas, he is a non-Christian because he is a member of the Mormon cult. And although Mitt Romney is a "good, moral person", according to Jeffress…..he isn't a "born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Because Romney is a non-Christian member of what evangelical born-agains consider a cult group….and not a true "born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ"….evangelical voters at the Value Voters Summit were encouraged by Pastor Jeffress to vote for a true born-again Christian candidate, Governor Rick Perry….and not Mitt Romney, the Mormon cultist. Ron Paul won the straw poll vote. Go figure.

So, what do we have here?

Pastor Jeffress and Mitt Romney both claim to believe deeply in invisible god-beings. Despite the man-written Book of Mormon and the man-written Bible…..no one in human history has ever seen, heard from, or spoken to any invisible god-beings. Pastor Jeffress and like-minded evangelical Christians have never seen, heard from, or spoken to "the Lord Jesus Christ"….and neither has Mitt Romney.

Yet, the sanctimonious Pastor Jeffress has the audacity to claim that the invisible god-being whom Mitt Romney believes in…is not really the authentic and genuine invisible god-being whom he and fellow "born agains" believe in….and because of THAT…..fellow "born again" voters, who also pledge their faith and loyalty to invisible god-beings…plural in the invisible Trinity, but singular in the One invisible god….should not vote for the non-Christian, Mitt Romney.

Those evangelical Christians have "values" to uphold, you understand.

Our Constitution prohibits any religious test to qualify for elected office…..but to evangelical Value Voters….a religious test for the U.S. presidency is essential. The reason? Because the invisible god-being(s) whom evangelicals believe in are far superior to the invisible god-beings Mormons believe in.

It's a good thing that modern America has moved so far away from the days of our superstitious Puritan roots, isn't it?

Washington Post…

Antiabortion activists who have sought for months to shut down a Germantown (Maryland) clinic picketed its landlord outside a Montgomery County middle school where his daughter is a student, school and police officials said Monday.

Keep in mind here, picketers protesting abortion did so at the middle school where the daughter of the landlord of a building which rents space to an abortion clinic attends school. The picketing at the middle school can only be interpreted as an act of intimidation against the daughter in order to put fear into the father, enough to kick the abortion clinic out of his building.

A small group of protesters stood outside Robert Frost Middle School in Rockville on Thursday, holding signs and a banner, during back-to-school night, officials said.

The student’s father, who did not want to be named to protect the safety of his daughter, a sixth-grader at the school, said he saw the five protesters when he went to the school event.

Some held a large banner that showed his photo, his full name, his phone number and the words “Please STOP the Child Killing.” Others held posters showing aborted fetuses.

The man owns the property in the Germantown office park where LeRoy Carhart has been performing abortions late in a pregnancy at the privately owned Reproductive Health Services clinic. Antiabortion protesters have repeatedly demonstrated outside the clinic since Carhart arrived in Maryland in December.

Abortion is legal in the United States. No American woman has ever been forced to have an abortion against their own will. While I understand both sides of the so-called abortion debate, until federal laws are changed by Congress and/or the Supreme Court, there is no defense for so hatefully picketing a middle school where the daughter of a landlord who rents space to an abortion clinic attends school.

While, apparently, no laws were broken by the picketers in Maryland, what is being reinforced by their actions is the inhumanity, cruelty, guilt-by-distant-association tactics, and hate filled intimidation…which, more and more, have become the defining characteristics of America's extreme right.

As the Tea Party right sings the praises of "freedom", many members are often simultaneously working to keep other Americans from exercising theirs.

There's much to criticize about today's American right…but it's the basic inhumanity, I think,…the callousness…which disturbs me the most. With the election of Obama, for what ever reason, it seems like this inhumanity and callousness have intensified.

Anti-abortion folks often claim morality in defense of their rigid and intolerant positions. But isn't it true that many of today's anti-abortionists are also part and parcel of the Tea Party movement? Here are the results of the last two years polling of Tea Party members….

2010 CBS poll…

They are more likely than American adults overall to attend religious services weekly (38 percent do so) and to call themselves evangelical (39 percent). Sixty-one percent are Protestant, and another 22 percent are Catholic.

NY Times, CBS poll August 17, 2011…

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today.

And, of course, it has been the Tea Party which has led the way in cutting government spending in the midst of our worst recession. You see, it is moral to picket at a middle school where the child of a landlord, whose renter runs an abortion clinic, attends school….because abortion is oh-so-immoral. But it's also immoral, according to the Tea Party, for the government to spend money to relieve the plight of the unemployed, the elderly and the poor in the middle of our deepest recession….because the country has a deficit.

It was at the CNN/Tea Party Express GOP "debate" the other night when audience members applauded Ron Paul's answer that everyone was on their own when it came to medical care. When Wolfie Blitzer followed up by asking if we should simply allow an uninsured 30 year old American to die because he couldn't afford pre-existing condition insurance….a few in the audience cheered "Yeah" and "let him die."

Honestly, who does stuff like that? The bloodlust was palpable.

To me, all of this is a result of the extreme right's continued self-radicalization. It is a self-radicalization that refuses to have it any other way than their way. It is marked by actions, policies and words of cruelty, intolerance and basic inhumanity.

But then maybe it's just me, maybe I'm just too sensitive.

How do you see it? Is the extreme right in the U.S., as seen in the words and actions of Tea Party members, just acting immorally moral? Or perhaps, just claiming morality, but, in reality, speaking and acting immorally?

This year, 22 state legislatures, all controlled by conservatives, have introduced some form of voter ID law in their states. There is no evidence in any of these states that voter fraud is a problem. But like the far right's insistence that Sharia law is a threat to the states, there doesn't have to be any reality-based evidence that a problem exists for today's version of conservatives to act to "fix" the problem.

Now, I suppose I don't blame Republicans for doing everything they can to cheat when it comes to voting. The Republican Party, with their increasingly narrow view of what makes America, America….plus the GOP's doubling down for the sake of the (mostly white) rich and powerful….is quickly becoming a fringe political party which has nothing to offer average working class Americans.

Couple that reality with the recent unabashed ugliness expressed in a couple of GOP presidential candidates debates….and it's not hard to calculate why Republicans feel like they must game the system, or cheat…in order to win future elections.

September 7 GOP debate….

Brian Williams asked Governor Rick Perry about the death penalty in his state of Texas. Williams note Perry that his state “has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times,” which drew sudden applause from the audience

September 13 GOP/CNN/Tea Party Express candidates debate…

…after moderator Wolf Blitzer wondered whether the state should let a sick man with no insurance die, several audience members shouted, "yeah!"

First 2 minutes…

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

Conservatives can try to rationalize this ugliness, this apparent hate, which even took Governor Rick Perry by surprise,….but deep down, Republican leaders know that these two recent examples of ugliness is the stuff which turns off average American voters. Yet, the Tea Party-injected GOP can't seem to help themselves. From Obama hate, to Muslim hate, to hate of women who want to decide their own reproductive lives,….to hate for government programs which aid our poor, hate for union workers, teachers, police, firefighters….now down to hate for people who don't have health insurance…..the one descriptor which Americans are seeing more and more from conservatives….is hatefulness.

Given this reality, which even dirty-deed Republicans like Karl Rove and The Dick have criticized, it appears that the GOP is on the cusp of launching yet another salvo to game the nation's electoral system. If this new GOP initiative catches on in other Republican controlled states….the U.S. could possibly, eventually, descend into a civil war-like scenario.

(Pennsylvania) Gov. Tom Corbett and state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi are proposing that the state divide up its Electoral College votes according to which candidates carried each Congressional district, plus two votes for the statewide winner.

No, this is not illegal in any way. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, already do something similar. Progressives, especially after the awarding of the presidency in 2000 to the guy who came in second, have no emotional attachment to the Electoral College-method of choosing our nation's president. But imagine what would happen if 20 states, or more, pushed through state laws to do as Pennsylvania's Governor is proposing.

Am I simply overreacting….or wouldn't American citizens take to the streets if, say, another Republican presidential candidate lost the popular vote and was still awarded the White House because of GOP state legislatures and governors changing the rules to game the Electoral College?

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? However, is there much doubt that what we've been seeing from the Tea Party controlled GOP…..has been, you know, kind of crazy?

In my opinion, the future of the Republican Party in America has never really been so dim. Demographic groups which the GOP either ignores or bashes publicly will certainly not be drawn to the Party….and those demographics, younger voters, women, minorities…will make up a larger and larger share of our electorate moving forward. That means that it will be more and more difficult for GOP candidates to compete on a national level.

And thus….Governor Corbett's new dirty trick to game presidential elections. Rather than completely reform their out-of-date, out-of-ideas, political party…it looks like the GOP is deciding to go all in to steal the presidency, if nothing else will work.

Hopefully, Corbett's idea to game the Electoral College system for the sake of Republicans will not be well received by other red-states…but I kind of doubt that. Remember the number of GOP-controlled states which all tried to dismantle collective bargaining rights for union workers, simultaneously? And then there are the 22 GOP state voter ID initiatives.

As I've said numerous times on this blog, today's Republican Party has no resemblance to the GOP of my youth. Today's GOP has become a wretchedly-hateful political party which will do ANYTHING to preserve power. Anything.

Even steal a presidential election.

We know now that the Oslo, Norway terrorist-murderer is a right wing, anti-Muslim, Christian nationalist.

In online debates marks Anders Behring Breivik as well read, and one with strong opinions about Norwegian politics. He promotes a very conservative opinions, which he also called nationalist. He expresses himself strongly opposed to multiculturalism – that cultural differences can live together in a community.

Breivik has had many posts on the site Document.no, an Islam-critical site that publishes news and commentary.

In one of the posts he states that politics today no longer revolves around socialism against capitalism, but that the fight is between nationalism and internationalism. He expressed clear support for the nationalist mindset.

Anders Breivik Behring has also commented on the Swedish news articles, where he makes it clear that he believes the media have failed by not being "NOK" Islam-critical.

Elsewhere, it has been demonstrated that the murderer had a keen affection for anti-Muslim American screedist, Pam Gellar….she of the "no mosque at Groud Zero" infamy.

Brievak's philosophy would fit in very nicely on several Fox news programs, both radio and teevee. The anti-Muslim conservatives in America and this mass murderer from Norway hold similar beliefs. That doesn't make anti-Muslim Americans murderers or terrorists….it just puts them in the same ideological camp.

So commonplace has American anti-Muslim rhetoric become…not anti-jihadist rhetoric but anti-Muslim rhetoric, that conservative "journalists" in mainstream American media immediately blamed the bombing and youth camp murders in Norway on al-Qaeda….

We don’t know if al Qaeda was directly responsible for today’s events, but in all likelihood the attack was launched by part of the jihadist hydra. Prominent jihadists have already claimed online that the attack is payback for Norway’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

"in all likelihood"

Here is what kneejerk journalism, seasoned by never-ending Muslim bashing by Americans and American media, looks like….

Moreover, there is a specific jihadist connection here: “Just nine days ago, Norwegian authorities filed charges against Mullah Krekar, an infamous al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist who, with help from Osama bin Laden, founded Ansar al Islam – a branch of al Qaeda in northern Iraq – in late 2001.”

The author, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, was ready to take the case to trial. She already had al-Qaeda Muslim fingerprints all over the terrible crime…and had even established motive.

Then comes the warning to any of us out here in America who still aren't taking Sharia and the Caliphate seriously enough….

This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists.

That is followed by a quote from a representative of the American Enterprise Institute….an organization who can never support enough wars against Muslim nations….

“There has been a lot of talk over the past few months on how we’ve got al-Qaeda on the run and, compared with what it once was, it’s become a rump organization. But as the attack in Oslo reminds us, there are plenty of al-Qaeda allies still operating. No doubt cutting the head off a snake is important; the problem is, we’re dealing with global nest of snakes.”

Glenn Greenwald succinctly describes America's kneejerk assumptions that all tragic events are carried out by Muslims…..

For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits. The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates. The morning statement issued by President Obama — “It’s a reminder that the entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring” and “we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks” — appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly state, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group.

David Dayen, the best blogger at FireDogLake.com further explains…

These assumptions, cultivated through the last 10 years, are all the more insidious when you consider that, even after the affirmative ID of the perpetrator as a Norwegian nationalist, the NYT still intimated that the attacker somehow “learned” from Al Qaeda. They even intimated that it was OK to consider that “terrorists” would be responsible, as if a Norwegian shooting up a youth camp is somehow not an act of terrorism. They were not alone: the Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial, which made it into some early editions of the paper, reflected the assumption of Islamic terrorism.

This is a damaging side-effect of the 9-11 attacks. Ten years later, an entire religious group, representing 1 billion people worldwide, is for too many people synonymous with violence and terror, at total variance with the facts in many cases. And the rush to judgment followed by the rush to avoid judgment is depressingly familiar

The anti-Muslim hysteria in the United States, promoted primarily by American conservatives, has left a permanent mark. As the Professional media's response to the Norwegian tragedy demonstrates, we are an uglier nation because of it.

On January 20, 2011, I blogged about a domestic terrorism attempt on MLK Day in Spokane, Washington. Embarassingly, I stated in that blog that the attempted bombing happened in Seattle.

The domestic terrorist who authorities say planted a "weapon of mass destruction" backpack bomb along the MLK Day parade route in Spokane has now been arrested.

This week Northeast Washington learned one of its residents is suspected of being a Neo-Nazi terrorist. The FBI arrested 36-year-old Kevin Harpham for allegedly planting a bomb in a backpack along the route of Spokane's Martin Luther King Day Parade. Harpham is now being held at the Spokane County Jail.

Information in the case against Harpham is still sealed but from early media investigations this home grown white terrorist seems to have followed a similar radicalization path that Timothy McVeigh had followed. Harpham served in the Army from 1996-1999. After his gig in the military, Harpham began seeking out white supremacist groups like the Aryan Nation. In 2004, Harpham communicated with a Neo-Nazi group known as the National Alliance, who….

"…value quality above equality, and are willing to do whatever must be done to restore America to racial and moral health."

"I can't wait till the day I snap", Harpham wrote in 2006 on the Vanguard News Network internet site…..one of a 1000 comments he made at the anti-Semitic forum.

Also from yesterday….

Five people in the Fairbanks area were arrested Thursday by state and federal law enforcement on charges connected with an alleged plot to kidnap or kill state troopers and a Fairbanks judge, according to the Alaska State Troopers.

An investigation "revealed extensive plans to kidnap or kill Alaska state troopers and a Fairbanks judge," the statement said. The plans included "extensive surveillance" on the homes of two Fairbanks troopers, the statement said.

"Investigation also revealed that extensive surveillance on troopers in the Fairbanks area had occurred, specifically on the locations of the homes for two Alaska state troopers," the statement said. "Furthermore, (Francis) Cox et. al. had acquired a large cache of weapons in order to carry out attacks against their targeted victims. Some of the weapons known to be in the cache are prohibited by state or federal law."

Cox was part of Fairbanks, Alaska's "sovereign citizen" movement. The "sovereigns" are the self-radicalized groups in the U.S. whose members insist they do not have to obey federal, state or local laws….and when challenged by law enforcement, have the right to use deadly force against them.

Meanwhile, back in Washington D.C. this week….Republican Peter King convened congressional hearings on the radicalization of American terrorists. Not all radicalized American terrorists….not neo-Nazis, not sovereign citizens groups, not white supremacist radicals…..only "the extent of radicalization in the American Muslim community and that community’s response”.

Yesterday, Ohio.com's own Da King blogged mocking the 50 progressive groups who objected to Peter King's singular focus on Muslim-Americans……

…they don't want Rep. King or anyone else telling people who the terrorists are, where the terrorists come from, how the terrorists are created, or what steps might be taken to prevent the creation of future terrorists in America. That's how damn serious those (progressive groups) are about terrorism, by golly, as in…they aren't serious at all.

For both Kings, it was their lowest moment.

In both cases…..empirical evidence played no part….

Mr. King, chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, offered not a scintilla of substantiation for his charges that more than 80 percent of American mosques are run by radicals — “an enemy living amongst us.” Nor did he offer any evidence to support his assertions that “law enforcement officials throughout the country told me they received little or — in most cases — no cooperation from Muslim leaders and imams.”

He ignored a study indicating that in a hefty 40 percent of domestic extremist plots that were thwarted, law enforcement had help from Muslims. And he completely avoided the more complex and worthy issue of threats to the nation from a wide array of homegrown militants that law enforcement officials must deal with, from neo-Nazis to wannabe jihadists.

Despite his claims of insider law enforcement knowledge, Mr. King didn’t call a single police witness to testify.

Our own Da King….

Rep. Peter King isn't making the homegrown terrorist threat up, folks. He's trying to come up with way to address it.

What the (progressive groups) are concerned with is the perception of being Islamophbic. It's about appearances, not reality. The (progressive groups) are using that to play upon our fears of being called Islamophobic. It's a sort of Islamophobia-phobia they are pushing, for lack of a better term.

Those (who are progressive) pretend King is being Islamophobic because his hearings focus exclusively on the Muslim terrorist threat, while ignoring the terrorist threat from other groups, such as those radicalized Boy Scouts, or those jihadist Mothers Against Drunk Driving, I guess.

The Kings of embarassment…..both seemingly clueless and shameless in their defense of a new McCarthy Inquisition against all American Muslims. Both Kings have been radicalized by extreme conservative political dogma of division and hate. The self-radicalization of the Kings has led them to knowingly shun truth in favor of bigotry.

Perhaps another hearing is in order.