For the past few years, I've been explaining to readers how congressional Republicans will move to impeach President Obama…should he win a second term. One doesn't have to be Nostradamus to understand the modern GOP playbook. All one has to do is review the 2nd term of our last Democratic president. Something which Esquire's Charles Pierce does for us.

In the February issue of Esquire, Pierce reports on a recent interview with Bill Clinton……

…Clinton talks about a change of heart experienced by a former GOP congresscritter named Bob Inglis, who lost in a primary in 2010 because he said disrespectful things about Glenn Beck but who, in the giddy years of the late 1990's, wielded his pitchfork most enthusiastically in the cause of impeaching Clinton, an effort for which he recently apologized, according to the former president, who nonetheless told us:

"I had a fascinating meeting with Bob Inglis the other day. Bob Inglis was an extremely conservative Republican congressman from South Carolina. He was a three-term-pledge guy in the nineties…. So he came to me and he said, "I just want you to know, when you got elected, I hated you. And I asked to be on the Judiciary Committee in 1993, because a bunch of us had already made up our minds that no matter what you did or didn't do, we were going to find some way to impeach you. We hated you. You had no right to be president."

If that sounds a little like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's number one priority for Republicans today…..making Barack Obama a one term president…..it is because both are taken from the same chapter of the same GOP playbook. That particular political playbook, incidentally, was partially written and implemented during the 90's by the world renowned moral values champion, Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was the architect of modern conservative wingnuterry….and also the lead morality cop in the GOP's fevered witch hunt ("We hated you.") against President Clinton.

Today, Gingrich (newly reborn moral values champion) is drawing "true conservatives" to his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination…..a nomination he will never win….in the hopes of debating President Obama before a national audience, where Newt, in his troubled mind at least, can really put it to conservatism's latest presidential object of hate, Democratic President Obama. But, sigh….it is not to be, because the Mittster has a train car load of money that the former disgraced Speaker does not….and establishment Republicans don't want to lose the presidential race AND both houses of Congress.

I'm starting to get the feeling that both sides now realize that Obama will win a second term. National polls show Romney trailing Obama by as much as 7 points right now. Sure, the race will tighten and blah, blah…but Romney is no match for Obama and I think both sides know it.

The only question left, then, is Congress. Who will control the houses of Congress after Obama wins a second term? And what is likely to happen if Republicans control Congress?

The person, if in fact he is truly of the human species, whom "three term pledge guy" Bob Inglis made his pledges to…Grover Norquist….let's us in on what the Republican plan will be should a 2nd Obama term become reality.

First…if Republicans should happen to win the presidency and Congress…

If the Republicans have the House, Senate, and the presidency, I’m told that they could do an early budget vote—a reconciliation vote where you extend the Bush tax cuts out for a decade or five years. You take all of those issues off the table, and then say, “What do you want to do for tax reform?”

Then, the question is: “OK, what do we do about repatriation and all of the interesting stuff?” And, if you have a Republican president to go with a Republican House and Senate, then they pass the [Paul] Ryan plan [on Medicare].

Tax Pope Norquist, the divine man whom all but a handful of congressional Republicans have bowed before and saluted as their infallible tax policy commander…reminds us of what Republicans will do if they control the whole shooting match next January. Tax amnesty for untaxed overseas corporate loot re-entering the U.S., (amnesty is fine for tax dodgers, just not Hispanics) making permanent the Bush era tax cuts and gutting privatizing Medicare. All followed by tax "reform" which will lower tax rates even further on America's privileged rich. Oddly…Grover doesn't mention anything about the gargantuan mountain of new debt his popish policies will create.

But what if Democrats still have control come next January…..what then Grover?

Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.

Same playbook. Different Democratic president.

To Republicans, impeachment is not a severe tactic reserved for the most egregious presidential behavior. Impeachment is what the GOP playbook states after the question: What to do when there is a Democratic president and a Republican Congress? Answer: Impeach the Democratic president.

On what grounds? On the grounds that Barack Obama is president while being a Democrat.

Mitt Romney has been paying taxes at a rate of 13.9%. The Romneys are in the top 1% of the top 1%. Romney's tax policy, should he be elected president, promises to cut tax rates on people like himself by an additional 1/3. If candidate Romney set forth a tax policy which made people like him pay more in taxes, then that would be one thing. But Romney's policy is meant to give families, like the Romneys, a 33% reduction in their already-low tax rate.

In the fever swamps of the conservative movement, people like Romney deserve to pay lower tax rates than, say, policemen…..because people like the Romney's are "investors." In this way of thinking, very rich Americans who, you know, "invest", should have lower tax rates than policemen.

You see, policemen….we are also told by conservatives…are, in reality, "takers." It is only the very rich in America, we're also told, who are the "makers." In a conservative's world, much of it borrowed from Aesop's Fables and what not, America is made up of "makers" and "takers." Those sorry Americans who work at a job provided by someone else are "takers" in conservative legends. Those great Americans who "invest" their riches in business and thus create jobs are "makers."

Conveniently, during a time of historically low tax rates on the rich, conservatives see Americans as either "makers" or "takers." You are either a "maker"….self-employed, wealthy and duh…a jaaabs creator. Or, you are a "taker"…..someone who is not rich and just works a job. Rather than being an outrageous insult to millions of "taker" Americans, conservatives see this "maker-taker" dichotomy as an accurate reflection of reality. Oddly, these same conservatives argue that they do not participate in the nasty, communist art of class warfare, like the awful President Obama does. Class warfare, you see, is the blood-sport of only the "takers."

Which brings me back to Shake & Make Mitt's tax rate. The very reason that Mitt Romney's tax rate has been at 15% or under is because Mitt doesn't work for a living. His fortune "works" for him so he doesn't have to. That is the exact reason why the GOP presidential candidate can say he is, and has been, "unemployed."

At issue here is the capital gains tax rate. Romney's ongoing income while unemployed, income which he doesn't work for, comes from the "work" his fortune does. With little exception, a capital gain is a profit made by not working. Income classified as capital gains income is considered "passive" income. Meaning that the income recipient didn't do anything to earn it.

Ever since Dick Cheney's "due" was passed in 2003 in the form of 15% capital gains and dividend tax rates, Mitt Romney and other alleged "makers" have been enjoying a lower tax rate on their passive "investments" than policemen and other middle class "takers" enjoy on their earned income, income derived from actually working, as opposed to being unemployed like Mitt.

The justification for lower tax rates on passive income of the very wealthy, as conservatives have explained it, is because the very wealthy "invest" their fortunes in jaaab creating ventures. Makers, it is alleged, put their money to work while remaining passive themselves….so that a host of new business ventures with their newly created jaaabs can be exploited by America's "takers."

How has that justification panned out from 2003 forward? This specific period has been accurately described as the lowest private sector job creation period in modern American history. Apparently, the "makers" from 2003 forward, basking in the lowest "maker" tax rate in modern history, didn't do much making, as it were.

Why is that?

Because today's "investors" don't do much investing. Instead, today's passive unearners….unearn their money the new fashioned way….they gamble. Well, the rich "investors", themselves, don't do the gambling…..others do it for them.

Capital gains unearned by buying and selling stocks, options, and other securities are gains unearned by removing money from one person's account and placing it in another's. The market in Wall Street paper shuffling is a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser. In this, "investing" is not investing at all…not in it's traditional meaning. It is purely a game of speculation where assets are transferred from one person to another. There is no investment….nothing is produced….no new business ventures are begun….no existing businesses are expanded….and no jobs are created.

David Stockman, former Reagan administration official, put it this way recently…

….a massive amount of resources are being devoted, being allocated or being channeled into pure financial speculation that has no gain to society as a whole, has no real economic contribution to the process by which GNP is created, GDP is created and growth occurs.

Here's the disgraceful part of all of this: Conservatives, still today, insist that those very rich Americans who participate in what Stockman calls "pure financial speculation that has no gain to society….no real economic contribution…"….like how Mitt Romney operates…..should pay tax rates on all their non-contribution-to-society speculations at a lower rate than a middle class person who works instead of speculating passively.

This issue is not about "fairness"….as Obama suggests. This issue is about morality. Pushing the notion that rich non-workers should pay lower tax rates than a middle class worker and earner….for being non-productive, for not contributing anything to our economic society……..is immoral.

Once again, another GOP presidential candidates "debate". CNN…again. Transcript.

CNN's John King, once a promising young reporter, now simply another Village idiot pretending to be a reporter, began the politico-drama last night by bringing up one of Newt Gingrich's ex-wives.

CNN, just like every corporate media outlet today, feigns objectivity. CNN knows…because they are oh-so-in-touch….that what viewers really want is to be entertained. King's opening question to Newt was offered purely for it's entertainment value. John King knew that his question to Gingrich about his 2nd ex-wife would rile up the far right audience…..another monumental confrontation (in conservative brains, at least) of the "liberal mainstream media" going after yet another poor, under siege, Republican.

John King has been around long enough to know that Gingrich would take the opportunity to bash "liberal media"….and that's just what Newt did. To CNN, and King, that would add entertainment value to the kickoff of the debate. Get the conservative audience's juices flowing and what not. To the question….'did you ask your second wife for an open marriage so you could continue banging your former aid Callista?'….Newt responded…

“No,” he said when asked if he wanted to address the issue. The audience burst into wild applause at his response. “I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country harder to attract decent people to run for office. I’m appalled you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.”

Now first off….the revelations from Newt's second wife that Newt behaved badly, you know, banging his former secretary while still married…..while simultaneously aggressively attacking President Clinton at the time for similar behavior….is well known. Not new and not news.

Quite a while ago I read the second Gingrich wife's account of life with Newt. She said that Newt told her it wasn't about what he did in his own life which was important. What was important, according to Gingrich, was what he had to say….allegedly his conservative message. All that was important was that Newt's message be heard by the American people. What Newt did in his own life was simply insignificant…not that important.

Therefore, when John King asked a question implying that Newt's personal life was…umm…less than virtuous….the question could easily be dismissed by the former Speaker. You see, asking Newt personal questions is irrelevant…..unless, of course, you are part of the "destructive, vicious, negative" news media out to do harm to the Party of Jesus, the GOP.

In the soap opera debate last night, John King played the role of 'nasty, Jesus hating, commie-loving, liberal mainstream news guy'…out to victimize yet another pure and righteous Republican candidate by asking a question about an old ex-wife story. Gingrich played the role of the pure and righteous Republican being victimized by "lamestream liberal media" guy.

The audience played the role of a World Wide Wrestling-like audience piling on those "liberal" refs who dared to question their righteous and beloved, "liberal media"-hating superstar.

It was all oh-so-predictably nauseating…..and phony.

But again….it's just what the "hate Obama" crowd needed. Like a heroin fix. Slapping a "liberal media" guy, even if that media guy is not liberal and is only play acting for the sake of ratings, invigorates the Jerry Springer ultra-conservative audience. And isn't that all that really matters? Isn't the entertainment value of these mock-debates all that matters?

I sincerely hope that Newt Gingrich wins in S. Carolina tomorrow…and eventually goes on to win the GOP nomination….though I still doubt that will happen. If Mitt Romney personifies all that is wrong and destructive about Wall Street and the financial industry's control of our nation over the last 30 years…..then Newt Gingrich personifies all that's turned ugly about the modern Republican Party over the same period.

Gingrich was the creator of today's ugly, hateful, divisive and fact-free politics. The Founding Father of Ugly. Trail blazer of the Alice in Wonderland politics which oozes daily, like slime, from America's right. But to people who pretend to be reporters and journalists….Newt packs just the entertainment punch corporately-owned, non-news outfits are looking for.

Finally….the opening of last night's "debate" reminded me of the old teevee show, Laugh-In. That's the one where Goldie Hawn giggled and became famous. Audiences for Laugh-In knew what was coming, what to expect. The straight man would ask a question…and then Goldie, or someone else, would pop their head out from behind a prop wall with window openings and give the punchline answer. All very humorous and entertaining….but only silly, childish fluff that no one took seriously.

You do the translation.

Following up on yesterday's post…it seems that the GOP presidential candidate-to-be, Mitt Romney, has responded to calls to release his tax returns by stating yesterday that his income tax rate is…

"probably closer to 15 percent than anything."

Romney also told reporters that he….

….gets speaker fees "from time to time, but not very much."

Do you know how much is "not very much" in the eyes of Mitt Romney?

$374,000.

Mitt Romney made $374,000 in fees for speeches given from Feb. 2010 through Feb. 2011. Golf outing tip money perhaps. Limousine driver tip money, maybe. But "not very much" in the mind of Mitt Romney, ultra-wealthy candidate for the presidency. Mitt's estimated net worth is nigh on $270 million. Romney's deal upon leaving Bain Capital provided a lifetime yearly income in the millions, so that his nestegg of $250-270 million can be eventually handed down to those who have earned it through their hard work of being biologically connected to Mitt. And if Mitt has anything to say about it…..that future inheritance money that the Romney brood will share will not be taxed by the federal government upon transfer….eliminating the estate tax a top priority of all Republican candidates.

So what to make of this?

A person who receives $374,000 in income in 12 months is automatically in the top 1% of our country's income earners. Yet, Mitt Romney said that that was "not very much." See the problem?

From June 2007 to June of this year, they said, median annual household income declined by 7.8 percent for non-Hispanic whites, to $56,320, and by 6.8 percent for Hispanics, to $39,901. For blacks, household income declined 9.2 percent, to $31,784.

Not only that, but also this…

U.S. household income fell to its lowest level in more than a decade in 2010 and poverty rose to a 17-year high,….

Framed by that dismal looking backdrop….Mitt Romney told reporters that $374,000 a year was "not very much."

The leading contender for the GOP presidential candidacy stated publicly that $374,000….almost 7 times the average family's income during our jobless recovery dating back to the last Republican administration……didn't really amount to "very much."

That is not a symptom of tone deafness. That is a symptom from a man who is not self-aware. A self-aware leading candidate hoping to dethrone the Dark Knight would know better than to add the words "not very much" to a statement where $374,000 was the topic. But not Mitt Romney.

That comment will again reinforce existing doubts over whether Mitt Romney is out of touch with average Americans. Not one American outside of the top 1% would describe $374,000 as "not very much."

Couple the "not very much" Romney comment with the candidate's income tax platform of reducing income tax rates by one third on the top 1%, all during our worst jobless recovery in my lifetime, and my claim that the former governor lacks self-awareness seems reasonable. Who is Romney trying to reach with such comments?

Then we have the half-hearted admission by America's first Mormon candidate that he pays an income tax rate "closer to 15% than anything." Even though Romney doesn't work for Bain Capital any longer, and hasn't for quite awhile, his platinum parachute, studded with diamonds, from Bain continues to pay Romney millions each year. What's more, because the parachute was put together based on the egregiously low capital gains and dividend tax rates of the Bush administration…..Mitt's ongoing millions for doing absolutely nothing is only taxed at 15%. Middle class earners pay at an average of 20%…..for working.

As I said yesterday, I have no insight into how the Republican Party thinks Romney can reach average American voters. If anything, Romney is the very personification of what most Americans detest about the 1%. Detached, arrogant, out of touch, and not self aware.

In a very difficult economic period for most American families, a period marked by huge income disparities between the top 1% and the rest of us…..the Republicans will feature a candidate for the presidency who pays a lower income tax rate on his yearly millions than most of the public employees whom Tea-fueled GOP governors have been attacking as overpaid and coddled. In a very difficult economic period for most American families when their yearly incomes have actually declined by 2.3% over the last couple of years to an average of between $30,000 and $55,000….the Republicans will feature a candidate for the presidency who claims that $374,000 per year is "not very much."

Who would vote for such a person to be the nation's president and CIC?

Better yet…..why would anyone vote for such a person?

There has been quite a bit of noise surrounding the U.S. Marines urinating-on-Taliban-corpses story. Most of the noise has been of the polite disapproval type. You know, 'I support our soldiers killing the terrorists over there, but those brave boys shouldn't be making videos of themselves desecrating dead bodies….that's just not right.'

The typical "condemnations" were issued by all the proper government folks. Kings of Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton both condemned the urinary actions by our fighting-for-freedom Marines and did what these proper government folks always do….announced that there would be an investigation.

Defense Secretary, Kings of Leon Panetta didn't just condemn the urination patrol….

“I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.” Panetta has ordered an investigation into the matter.

"in the strongest possible terms." Well, that makes all the difference in the world then.

Nothing much will come of any "investigation" into this incident…..and that is the exact reason there will be an investigation….so that nothing much will be done about this embarrassing situation.

Or is it an embarrassing situation? At least one CNN contributor thought it was a situation to be very proud of….

Dana Loesch: OK, stop this right here. Stop this right here.

Can someone explain to me if there's supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who was — as part of an organization murdered over 3,000 Americans? I'd drop trou and do it, too. That's me, though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say?

Come on, people. This is a war.

The one thing which has changed about the American people since 9-11 is our willingness to embrace the inhumane treatment of those we call our enemies. Our first offshore gulag, Guantanamo, is still proudly open for business, indefinite detention of whomever the president claims is an enemy combatant is now the law in the free country of the U.S., government's warrantless eavesdropping on all U.S. citizens electronic communications continues every single day, the numerous incidents of U.S. military personnel conducting criminal acts of savagery, and the bipartisan enthusiasm for launching hellfire missiles from robotic drones down onto Muslim "militants", including infant, child and mother "militants" in 7 different countries.

Anyone embarrassed by any or all of those realities? Any celebrity Leaders rushing to microphones to declare any or all of those realities "inconsistent with our values?" Of course not. Why not? Because those realities accurately reflect our post 9-11 values. And that explains why Leaders like the conservative darling, Allen West (R-FL) can say to those who might question the urination circle jerk on Taliban corpses…."unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell"……he is only patriotically giving voice to the new American reality.

That new reality claims that America, alone, is entitled to do anything we want, to anyone we want, in any country we want to do it in. Anyone who complains about this new reality, whether it's complaining about U.S. soldiers executing, at pointblank range, an entire family including an infant, mother and grandmother, and then calling in an airstrike to cover their savagery….or it's complaining about U.S. soldiers stalking, and then raping an underage Muslim girl and then killing her and her family…or it's moaning and bitching over funtime videos of fellow U.S. freedom fighters urinating on the corpses of Taliban members…..anyone who complains about any of it is automatically acting unpatriotic just by complaining.

Other Leaders, say, like Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, do what they do best in a post 9-11 American values period…..feign outrage at U.S. Marines circle-urinating on Taliban corpses….by reminding us that such circle-urination, or at least taking videos of said fun, is very much "inconsistent with our values". Which "values" is Hillary referring to, ya' think?. Would urinating on Taliban corpses be inconsistent with our Guantanamo "values?" How about the hundreds and hundreds of Muslim women and children we have blown or burnt up since 9-11? How is urinating on dead Taliban bodies inconsistent with the "values" represented in slaughtering Muslim women and children in multiple countries?

You might think that Endless War in Muslim countries, where Muslim women and children are routinely killed by U.S. actions….you might think that offshore gulags where detainees have been rotting without due process for almost a decade….would prevent people like Hillary Clinton from bringing up anything about American "values"….if only for the sake of self-embarrassment at the obvious dissonance. But you would be mistaken. In post 9-11 America we are also post-hypocrisy, post-shame.

America is a lesser nation post 9-11. We have accepted new values. In this, Bin Laden, though dead, has won out. An insignificant Muslim man has been responsible for changing America for the worse, perhaps permanently. That's how weak America really is. It's a weakness of character, leadership and integrity. We've become a narcissistic nation in love with our own perceived-values reflection. We have become so un-self aware that we refuse to even consider the fact that the rest of the world sees post 9-11 America as an imperialistic, aggressor nation which has lost it's sense of decency and justice, yet continues to sermonize them on the so-called superiority of "American values".

Our nation's new values are the values of savages and tyrants. They are the values of the cowardly and the weak. They are the values of a nation which has fully endorsed the doctrine of "might means right."

What's worse, even though I'm typing this on Martin Luther King Jr Day, a day that celebrates hope, I don't see anything changing for the better anytime soon.

Chris Christie, Republican governor of New Jersey, has been recently stumping for the GOP bankster presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Why Romney would desire an uncouth, sloppy, big mouthed ass to be stumping for him is beyond my pay grade to be answering.

Anyway, here's Baby Huey's latest demonstration of civility….

While Mitt Romney quietly smiled on stage, Christie yelled at a female protester, telling her, basically, to, as Digby put it, "suck my dick"…..

When a heckler yelled, "Christie kills jobs," Christie was ready with a response – New Jersey style.

"Really?" Christie replied. "Something may go down tonight but it's not going to be jobs, sweetheart."

Translation: "You, liberal slut, may be fellating someone tonight, as a liberal slut's custom is…..you may be "going down" on someone tonight, as all progressive females protesting our bankster nominee do…..but what's not "going down" is employment if Mitt, our bankster, is crowned president of the U.S….sweetheart"

Christie is the most repellant Republican holding office today…..and that is saying something. The obese governor's sloppiness in appearance is only equaled by his love of shouting locker room language at political and press gatherings.

What's worse….Christie is actually admired by Republican and conservative types BECAUSE he acts like Tony Soprano's pitiful character on the HBO series "The Sopranos." Christie likes to flaunt his Baby Huey appearance and his tendency to bully every time anyone challenges him. But just like Tony Soprano….Christie is but a big ball of conflicted fat in need of counseling.

Hey Huey…Tony Soprano is a teevee character….and you are oh-so-obviously pretending to act like that teevee character. And despite the cheers and applause from Republican zombies who would cheer and applaud with renewed vigor if you took a dump on stage……what you are saying, how you are saying it, how you look…is repulsive to the majority of Americans who are aware of you.

After calling progressive protestors streeet-whores, Christie went on to say some peculiarly stupid stuff…

Obama has "encouraged these people to be angry at Mitt and angry at me because we stand up for what we believe in," he said.

"Mr. President, you're up there in the family quarters of the White House, put your feet up and don't worry about it. Mitt Romney is going to bring people together," said Christie.

A couple of things here. What Mitt Romney and Chris Christie "believe in" is making average Americans suffer for the sake of the wealthy. Mitt's Bain Capital and Christie's attack on school teachers and other average workers in New Jersey clearly reveal that what these two men "believe in" is taking from the average worker and giving to the average millionaire. That's what these two men "believe in.

When Chris Christie had a chance to exercise his newly granted line item veto power last year…..he chose to eliminate $45 million in tax credits for the working poor, $9 million in health care for the working poor, $8 million for women's health care, another $8 million in AIDS funding and $9 million in mental health services.

But Christie also ADDED $150 million in school aid for the suburbs, including the wealthiest towns in the state.

While limiting public employees collective bargaining power, Christie cut the paychecks of public employees, making them pay more towards health care and pensions. All this while threatening to veto a renewal of a surtax on New Jersey's millionaires.

Furthermore, the New Jersey governor's line that Mitt Romney will "bring people together" is the biggest hoot of the election season thus far. What has Mitt Romney done so far? He's divided conservatives and Republicans, not united them. The GOP primary spectacle has been one prolonged scream by conservative and Republican voters of "anyone except Romney."

The GOP Clown Car keys have been handed from one Donald Trump Clown to another all of 2011…all in an effort to avoid a Romney candidacy. Yet, the obese New Jersey governor, in his typical "I'm pissed (and fat)" demeanor brashly claims that Mitt Romney "is going to bring people together."

Finally,….tell me, how is having a sloppy, loud mouthed, crude, anti-working class, pro-rich New Jersey GOP Governor on stage with you telling protesters that they are street whores supposed to help Mitt Romney's chances of becoming the Republican Party nominee in November?

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.

Recently, I presented two examples of modern racism. One involved the mortgage seller, Countrywide…the other involved an AP study examining South Carolina's voter ID law and it's racist implications. While America has made great strides in our tolerance of non-whites, non-Christians and non-males….racism and bigotry in the United States is far from being eradicated.

Case in point: Rick Santorum…

"Having that strong foundation of the faith and family allows America to be in a position where we can be more free," Santorum says. "We can be free because we are good decent moral people."

For Santorum that means cutting government regulation. Making Americans less dependent on government aid. Fewer people getting food stamps, Medicaid and other forms of federal assistance — especially one group.

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," Santorum begins. "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families."

Santorum did not elaborate on why he singled out blacks who rely on federal assistance. The voters here didn't seem to care.

For many years it has been clear to me that what many conservatives and Republicans dislike about America's safety net is the fact that non-whites receive benefits from it. Of course, it goes without saying that this is not true of all conservatives and Republicans. One size never fits all.

It is quite clear from Rick Santorum's comment that he believes whenever food stamps, public housing, Head Start, welfare-to-work programs, etc. are being talked about…..in reality the discussion is really about black Americans. Santorum does not want to "make black people's lives better" through these governmental safety net programs. That's what he said. Why not? Because the government is giving them "somebody else's money."

At least Rick Santorum, David Brooks' latest crush, didn't try to hide behind politically correct weaselness. Rick just came out and said what was on his mind…..and it's the same thinking that has been on the minds of a good many conservatives and Republicans for over a half a century now. Sure, blacks should be treated equally….but not given welfare, because welfare is "somebody else's money." The implication is that the "somebody else" is made up of white Americans.

This is the same thinking which has expressed itself over the last three years, primarily by white conservatives, in characterizing the black President Obama as an affirmative-action president. The bogus idea being that a black guy could have never risen to such prominence without welfare, affirmative action or handouts being involved….all unearned, naturally….and funded with "somebody else's money."

I've been around long enough to know that what Rick Santorum said about black Americans is exactly what many conservative types think about black Americans. Many white Americans, for whatever reason, do not want their tax monies going to help "somebody else", especially if that somebody else is black.

That dynamic is the dynamic which explains conservative opposition to ObamaCare. In ObamaCare, Medicaid, health coverage for our poorest citizens, many of whom are black, is expanded. Under ObamaCare, citizens who earn up to 300% of the poverty level will qualify for Medicaid. To conservatives, that means that health care to more poor blacks will be paid for with "somebody else's money." That is anathema to many Republicans and conservatives who happen to be primarily white.

Sure, just like Santorum did, conservatives repeat the, "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families", disclaimer to fig leaf their actual motivations. But make no mistake…..Rick Santorum is also against the government creating enough jobs to employ those unemployed black Americans during a weak demand recession. Still today, for every job opening, there are 4 Americans trying to land it.

Santorum also told the same audience…

“Diversity creates conflict. If we celebrate diversity then we lay the groundwork for that conflict.”

So, I guess, it's okay to not be a white male…..but we shouldn't "celebrate" that some one, or some group of Americans, are not white males. Pointing out and celebrating our differences, our distinctions…if I'm plumbing Santorum's words properly….angers white males and leads to conflict.

That is so top-to-bottom….so wrong, there really is no need to expand on it.

But Santorum's overall message is clear, isn't it? He doesn't appreciate America when America celebrates its diversity. Celebrating America's rich and diverse population, for Rick, leads to anger and conflict.

If all that wasn't quite disturbing enough coming from an ex-senator closing strong in the Iowa GOP presidential primaries….here's the kicker….

"We can be free because we are good decent moral people."

Jesus.

The thing about Michele Bachmann is that she leads the TEA Party caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives. While everything Mrs. Bachmann says, naturally, cannot be automatically attributed to TEA Partiers everywhere, she does represent TEA Partiers in her House position. And proudly so.

In yet another GOP debate Saturday evening…..that I did not watch….TEA Party Michelle took it to the outer limits...

“The ‘Great Society’ has not worked and it’s put us into the modern welfare state,” she said. “If you look at China, they don’t have food stamps. If you look at China, they’re in a very different situation. They save for their own retirement security. They don’t have the modern welfare state ….and China’s growing. And so what I would do is look at the programs that LBJ gave us with the Great Society and they’d be gone.”

China doesn't have a food stamp program or a Social Security program like the U.S…..and "China's growing." So, in TEA Party thinking, if the U.S. would simply get rid of its food stamp and Social Security programs….the U.S. economy would grow as well.

The Reverend has often pointed out, sometimes tongue-in-cheek, sometimes not, that supply side conservatives in the United States will not be happy until American workers are working for Chinese labor rates. Believe it or not, that is the Republican/Tea Party solution to our deep recession.

You see, China's economy is growing…and the U.S?…well, not so much. To movement conservatives who only care about profits….if the U.S. would just follow in the footsteps of a growing economy, like China, our economy could grow too. Getting rid of the safety net of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the food stamp program, and so forth….according to TEA Party caucus leader, Bachmann,….is the way to grow our U.S. economy. Just follow China's lead.

Michele Bachmann is a candidate from the GOP who is seeking the presidency of the United States. She would like the U.S. to behave more like China. That's her message.

And the problem is, as crazy as it may seem,….is that way too many Village politicians on both sides of the corporate-lackey aisle agree with Michele…..even many who would never acknowledge so publicly.

As we see in the Penn State ugliness, the rich, the powerful, the celebrated in American no longer feel like the rules apply to them. I'm not sure why that is, really….but it is. And that principle helps to explain how it is that during America's worst economic downturn in a lifetime, with unemployment rates at somewhere between 9% and 15%, with low tax rates, with our problem being one of lack-of-demand……our Leaders have decided that NOW is the time to rig the system a bit more in favor of the already filthy rich.

Just like with the Penn State "leaders"…..shamelessness is really what it is. America has become a nation led by powerful, wealthy, and detached celebrity Leaders who shamelessly stride the earth above the unwashed masses, doing as they please, taking what they want, dismissively hurting millions in order to enrich themselves and their friends even more.

Our corporately bought-and-paid-for elected officials have been working overtime in the middle of this pain-inducing economic nightmare…working overtime to further enrich the top 1%. These appendages of Fortune 500 America have been taking the opportunity presented in the economic misery being experienced by millions of Americans in this downturn….to further cut taxes and accountability for the already-filthy rich and powerful.

To me, that is the ugly disgrace of our current national political "conversation." There is little difference in what our elitist Leaders are working to accomplishment during our deep recession from how looters often behave during a national emergency. Shameless, and heartless, Leaders are taking the opportunity of our severe recession to take what they can while they can take it.

Disaster governance. Heartless governance.

And as these Leaders arrange and manipulate conditions on the ground to benefit the already rich and powerful at the further expense of the have-nots…..it's just like with Joe Paterno and his untouchable football Leaders……our political leaders no longer have the capacity for shame.

And that…in the end….will lead to America's final demise.

It was transparently clear during the last national hostage-taking crisis that Republicans would never allow any further legislation to pass which would help relieve the misery of the have-nots who are still reeling from the Big Bankster Caper. A political party that would push the richest and most powerful nation in all of human history to the brink of bankruptcy to damage the chances for re-election of their most hated opponent, President Obama….will try anything to regain power. So, current Republican obstructionism over Obama's second jobs stimulus bill is as natural now as water flowing downhill.

Despite Droopy Dawg McConnell's description of the GOP's number one priority…"making President Obama a one term president"….President Obama has never given up on "winning over" Republican votes for his policies. Obama's politics are not the same old partisan politics, dontcha know. This, of course, has proven to be total foolishness….worse than wishful thinking on Obama's part….but it is what it is.

Trying to win over GOP votes led to a weak and timid stimulus bill in 2009, an insurance and pharma-friendly Affordable Care Act without a cost-lowering public option, and three back-to-back-to-back dangerous hostage taking situations over whether billionaires should pay a lower tax rate than secretaries.

But our President can't learn and can't be taught…apparently….so it comes as no surprise that in Obama's new Jobs Program initiative, he has included sweeteners to, once again, piss into the wind, try to attract GOP votes.

In order to attract GOP votes for his new jobs bill, Obama has included a measure that would repeal an existing law intended to prevent government contractors from dodging their tax responsibilities.

The piece of the jobs bill Republicans will pass will end a requirement that the government withhold three percent of the cost of projects contracted out to private companies, to assure tax compliance. It’s a rule that Congress adopted during the Bush administration to cut down on tax cheating by government contractors.

As TPM writer, Brian Beutler points out, because every bill must be paid for with the exception of tax cuts for America's wealthy, which are exempt,…..the $10 billion-over-10-year loss to the Treasury by rescinding the law meant to keep government contractors honest…..must also be paid for. Republicans, the brave and mighty deficit-hawks that they are, insist on it.

So it came to pass that Droopy's Dawgs came up with an idea. The GOP congressional cartoon characters, sweetened up to accept the tax-dodger portion of Obama's "bipartisan" new Jobs Act, have decided to pay for the $10 billion in lost revenue by making old and sick people pay for it.

Yes, these are the same folks who claim they are the political "party of life." Perhaps the lives of old, sick people don't qualify….I don't really know…..but here is what Speaker Boehner will introduce in the House as a way of paying for letting tax cheats skate…..

The government uses a measure known as Modified Adjusted Gross Income to determine Medicaid eligibility. Currently, though, it only incorporates the taxable portion of Social Security income in that calculation. Under this proposal, it would factor in all Social Security benefits. That means some seniors who currently qualify for Medicaid would no longer be eligible. Doing this would save about $14.6 billion over 10 years — more than the cost of repealing the 3 percent withholding compliance measure.

What a great idea, huh? These are the same people who voted unanimously in the House and Senate to voucherize Medicare which the Congressional Budget Office concluded would add approximately $6000 more to every seniors out-of-pocket health costs. It's not as if Republicans don't have some experience in offering up punishments to the old and the sick for the sins of a tiny minority of very rich crooks. Punishing the old and the sick is worn as a badge of honor by our nation's neo-confederates.

Beutler concisely wraps up….

In sum: make it easier for big contractors to cheat on their taxes, and covering the cost by limiting Medicaid eligibility for sick old people.

Naturally, none of this will pass. It's all Kabuki. But let me ask readers, who in the hell are Republicans appealing to with this tax-dodgers-go-free-at-the-expense-of-the-old-and-the-sick? Are there still a few billionaires out there who are undecided on which political party represents their own greed-and-plunder interests? Doubtful.

Quite frankly, current congressional Republicans have all become Rush Limbaugh's. Limbaugh, the lying, deceptive traitorous scum that he is, bloviates 3 hours every day to accomplish two things: 1) piss off progressives, and 2) give clueless conservative listeners a laugh by appealing to his audience's biases and bigotry.

Now, congressional Republicans are following in Lord Limbaugh's footsteps, as loyal disciples often do. Droopy McConnell and Weepy Boehner are doing their best Limbaugh impression….knowing that progressives will be honked off by a proposal which assists tax cheats in their efforts while laying the cost of that tax cheating on the backs of the old and the infirm….and knowing that their neo-confederate base will wallow in glee at any prospect of pissing off progressives.

Quite a sick bunch of fratboy assh*les….wouldn't you say?