Racist, violent tea partiers go WAY too far

Huff Post

Preceding the president's speech to a gathering of House Democrats, thousands of protesters descended around the Capitol to protest the passage of health care reform. The gathering quickly turned into abusive heckling, as members of Congress passing through Longworth House office building were subjected to epithets and even mild physical abuse.

A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident.

But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.

Other tea partiers carried signs, shown below, threatening gun violence on those who would pass this bill. This is WAY out of hand. where is the indignation? Am I the only one who remembers the outrage when Cindy Sheehan set up a demonstration outside of Crawford, TX, to protest the Iraqi War? There were no threats of violence and yet it was a national story. This is buried on CNN and not even mentioned on Fox.

Where is the evenhandedness from the media? Where is the shame on behalf of the GOP for coddling these nutjobs?

7 years, thousands dead Americans, hundreds of thousands total dead, tens of thousands wounded, hundreds of billions spent, no safer.... all for a lie

Brave New Foundation

Wash. Times issues first call for impeachment. I'm surprised it took this long.

Washington Times via Media Matters

Granted, it IS the Washington Times. No shame.

The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.

It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.

It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.

Jon Stewart does half of his show on Glenn Beck

Intro:


Full Segment

Children by the millions scream for Alex Chilton: 1950-2010

I'm in love with that song







LA Times obit

***UPDATE***
This is cool. Recognition on the floor of the House.

Colbert on Beck and Bachmann's anti-Census race-baiting; Stewart on tea bagger uprising

Mike Pence is horribly, horribly confused by easy math

In it's first ten years, Obamacare will cost $940 billion and save a total of $1.07 trillion. A net savings of $130 billion.

Easy math: $1070 minus 940. Mike Pence is either confused, stupid or deliberately playing dumb because the facts are not what he wishes them to be. My guess is a mix of 2 and 3.

Ezra Klein

"Only in Washington," said Rep. Mike Pence, "can you spend a trillion dollars and say you’re gonna save the taxpayers' money.”

And only in Washington can such willful obtuseness be considered a professional attribute. You can believe that the savings in the Democratic plan will work as CBO thinks they will work, or you can disagree with that. But let's not pretend there's something complicated about the theory of spending money and saving money at the same time.

The CBO numbers are in

via Cesca

Ezra Klein lays it out:

The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years -- so, 2020 to 2029 -- it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population.

This is great, of course. Now it's up to the Democrats to pass the thing and then the very important work of making sure voters know about these praise-worthy details.

Adding... More:

1. CUTS THE DEFICIT Cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years (2010 – 2019). Cuts the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.

2. REINS IN WASTEFUL MEDICARE COSTS AND EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE; CLOSES THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DONUT HOLE Reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year—while improving benefits and lowering costs for seniors. Extends Medicare’s solvency by at least 9 years.

3. EXPANDS AND IMPROVES HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans Helps guarantee that 95 percent of Americans will be covered.

4. IS FULLY PAID FOR Is fully paid for – costs $940 billion over a decade. (Americans spend nearly $2.5 trillion each year on health care now and nearly two-thirds of the bill’s cost is paid for by reducing health care costs).

Republicans have no shame: part five - Mike Pence

Steve Benen

THE WIT AND WISDOM OF MIKE PENCE.... House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the #3 official in the House GOP leadership, spoke to The Daily Caller about some of the procedural questions surrounding health care reform.

So, for example, we see this exchange:

The Daily Caller: Yesterday you said the self-executing rule was unconstitutional. Is that correct?

Mike Pence: Well I think it's probably unconstitutional. I know that there are leading legal scholars who believe it is unconstitutional. My background in law and constitutional issues suggests to me it's unconstitutional.

Which was followed soon after by this exchange:

The DC: My question is, though, that Democrats say you voted for self-executing rules yourself on three occasions.

MP: Yeah, sure.

Oh my.

Pence added that if the House approves the Senate bill and a reconciliation budget fix through "deem and pass," then the House will have passed the Senate bill "without ever voting on it" -- suggesting he doesn't really understand what the self-executing rule is.

Pence went on to say that the Senate bill, even if it's signed into law, "cannot be fixed by reconciliation." To bolster this bizarre assertion, he pointed to ... nothing in particular.

As for the constitutionality question, and the fact that Pence has voted for self-executing rules several times, I also enjoyed this exchange:

The DC: It's an issue of the magnitude of the legislation?

MP: I think that's part of it.

I see. The constitutionality of a procedural rule in the House is dependent on whether Mike Pence things the rule is being applied to a "big" bill or not.

Remember, this guy not only went to law school, but is a top member of the Republican leadership and -- I kid you not -- someone openly considering a presidential campaign.

Republicans have no shame: part four - Beck says Sunday vote "an affront to God"

How does ANYONE still support either of these jackasses?

Glenn Beck and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) expressed harmonized outrage on Beck's radio program Thursday about news that the House might vote on the health care reform package this Sunday. Voting on a Sunday, they said, was offensive and heretical.

"They intend to vote on the Sabbath, during Lent, to take away the liberty that we have right from God," King said.

"Faith has been perverted," Beck responded, then repeated. "They are going to vote for this damn thing on a Sunday, which is the Sabbath, during Lent."

Beck continued:

"Here is a group of people that have so perverted our faith and our hope and our charity, that is a -- this is an affront to God."

Be straight with this. This Glenn Beck defending God is the same one who has been attacking the Christian church for it's promotion of (duh-duh-dah) "Social Justice", calling it a Nazi code word. And this is the same Steve King who pseudo-defended (and never condemned) Joe Stack, the nutjob who crashed his plane into an Austin IRS office in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

McConnell's strategy of blocking progress, accomplishing nothing and trashing America for votes

There is an extraordinary piece in the Times where Republicans readily admit their strategy is nothing more than to obstruct, say no, deny Obama any accomplishments and then blast him during the elections as a do-nothing President.

Of course, the fact that the business of the American people is not getting done, people are dying for lack of health care, the economy is still teetering, jobs are still being lost, financial shenanigans are still going on and people are losing their homes isn't important. Winning elections is, no matter how many Americans have to be hurt in their electoral games.

This is douchebaggery at it's highest level. And there is still no sense of shame.

New York Times

Before the health care fight, before the economic stimulus package, before President Obama even took office, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation.

...
(He) has come to embody a kind of oppositional politics that critics say has left voters cynical about Washington, the Senate all but dysfunctional and the Republican Party without a positive agenda or message.

...
More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s strategy has left Republicans at risk of being tagged as pure obstructionists and a party without a positive agenda.

...
“Their goal,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, “is to slow down activity to stop legislation from passing in the belief that this will embolden conservatives in the next election and will deny the president a record of accomplishment.”

...
As the year went on, Mr. McConnell spent hours listening to the worries and ideas of Republicans, urging them not to be seduced by the attention-grabbing possibilities of cutting a bipartisan deal

...
“Throwing grenades is easier than catching them,” acknowledged Senator John Thune of South Dakota, a fellow member of the Republican leadership.

Jon Stewart explains regulatory reform

Why does it take Jon Stewart to clear this stuff up? Isn't a comedian doing the job that our own government and media ought to be doing?

It's taken you idiots two years during the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression to compile a list of regulations we should have put into place the next day? Well, better late than never, I guess.

Santorum: Obama "may go to Indonesia and bow to more Muslims"

And this guy wants to be President of the United States? Why do I think the 2012 GOP primaries is going to be the American Idol of who can say the most outrageous, outlandish shit?

Huff Post

I think the Democrats are actually worried he may go to Indonesia and bow to more Muslims. That's sort of the concern that every time he seems to go to these other countries, he comes back or starts some sort of controversy that hits his popularity. I'm serious.

Republicans have no shame: part three

Krugman

As health reform moves to its final, make or break vote — I think it’s going to go through, but I’ll be hanging on by my fingernails all week — Republicans are still denouncing it as a vast, evil government takeover. But they have a problem: Obamacare is very much like the Massachusetts health reform, which was not only implemented by a Republican governor, but by a governor who is a serious contender for the 2012 presidential nomination.

So they insist that the two plans have nothing in common — but the only real difference they can point to is that Massachusetts didn’t fund its plan in part out of Medicare savings.

Of course, it couldn’t. But think about this a bit more: Republicans are saying that what makes Obamacare a socialist takeover, whereas Romneycare wasn’t, is the fact that unlike Romney’s plan, Obama’s plan cuts government spending.

Oh, Kay.

Myths and falsehoods on budget reconciliation

Media Matters

Myth: Reconciliation is the nuclear option

Myth: Reconciliation undermines democracy

Myth: Reconciliation in general is "arcane," abnormal, and rarely used

Myth:Reconciliation is unprecedented for health care

Myth: Using reconciliation will bypass debate affecting "1/6 of our economy"

Myth: Democrats propose passing health care with only 51 votes

Myth: Obama broke a promise not to pass health care with a 50 + 1 vote

Top ten immediate benefits of ObamaCare

Dems.gov

As soon as health care passes, the American people will see immediate benefits. The legislation will:

• Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;
• Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
• Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
• Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;
• Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;
• Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;
• Require plans to cover an enrollee’s dependent children until age 26;
• Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
• Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;
• Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.

By enacting these provisions right away, and others over time, we will be able to lower costs for everyone and give all Americans and small businesses more control over their health care choices.

CNN's new hire called Justice Souter a "David Souter a goatfucking child molester"

You stay classy, CNN.

Media Matters

CNN announced that RedState.com editor Erick Erickson will join the channel as a political commentator, stating that he is "a perfect fit" for the new show John King, USA. Erickson's long history of incendiary, sexist, and racially charged statements includes asking when voters would "march down" and "beat" lawmakers "to a bloody pulp" and referring to former Supreme Court Justice David Souter as a "goat fucking child molester."

Other great Erikson quotes:

"At what point do the people ... march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp?"

Erickson defends Beck's statement that Obama is "racist" and lashes out at "Obama Brownshirts."

On Obama's Nobel Peace Prize: "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota."

Republicans have no shame: part two

Krugman

Oh, my. Dick Armey invokes the Federalist Papers on behalf of the tea party movement:

“Who the heck do these people think they are to try to sit in this town with their audacity and second-guess the greatest genius, most creative genius, in the history of the world?” Armey demanded.

A member of the audience passed a question to the moderator, who read it to Armey: How can the Federalist Papers be an inspiration for the tea party, when their principal author, Alexander Hamilton, “was widely regarded then and now as an advocate of a strong central government”?

Historian Armey was flummoxed by this new information. “Widely regarded by whom?” he challenged, suspiciously. “Today’s modern ill-informed political science professors? . . . I just doubt that was the case in fact about Hamilton.”

Actually, of course Hamilton was very much a strong-government type. More than that: he was the author of the Report on Manufactures, an early call for — drum roll — industrial policy, backed by public investment.

I’m sure the response to Armey’s comeuppance will be a denunciation of liberal snobbery. But remember, it was Armey who was trying to pull intellectual rank, proclaiming himself the true heir of the Founding Fathers … whose writings he hasn’t bothered to read.

Republicans have no shame

More "do as I say, not as I do".

TPM

The procedure every(GOP)one is so up in arms about is called a "self-executing rule." How many times did the Republicans use it the last time they controlled Congress, 2005-06? More than 35 times! And the Democrats? They complained about it then too, though to the best of my knowledge there were no claims of treason.

Norm Ornstein has the story.

See Media Matters also.

In related news, Ezra Klein catches David Brooks in a series of big, fat, whopping lies:.

"Reconciliation has been used with increasing frequency," writes Brooks. "That was bad enough. But at least for the Bush tax cuts or the prescription drug bill, there was significant bipartisan support."

...
But none of Brooks's evidence is true. Literally none of it. The budget reconciliation process was used six times between 1980 and 1989. It was used four times between 1990 and 1999. It was used five times between 2000 and 2009. And it has been used zero times since 2010. Peak reconciliation use, in other words, was in the '80s, not the Aughts. The data aren't hard to find. They were published on Brooks's own op-ed page.

Nor has reconciliation been limited to bills with "significant bipartisan support." To use Brooks's example of the tax cuts, the 2003 tax cuts passed the Senate 50-50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. Two Democrats joined with the Republicans in that effort. Georgia's Zell Miller, who would endorse George W. Bush in 2004 and effectively leave the Democratic Party, and Nebraska's Ben Nelson. So I'd say that's one Democrat. One Democrat alongside 49 Republicans. That's not significant bipartisan support.

Another example: In 1993, Bill Clinton passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. The final tally was, again, a tie broken by the vice president. In this case, not a single Republican voted for the bill.

As for the prescription drug benefit? The prescription drug benefit didn't go through reconciliation. It was passed through the normal order. Brooks is simply wrong on this.

To recap, Brooks argued that reconciliation is being used more frequently, and that past reconciliation bills, like Bush's tax cuts and prescription drug benefit, were significantly bipartisan. Reconciliation is, in fact, being used less frequently, past reconciliation bills like the tax cuts were not significantly bipartisan by any stretch of the imagination, and the prescription drug benefit did not go through reconciliation. Brooks isn't wrong in the sense that "I disagree with him." He's wrong in the sense that the column requires a correction.

Stewart compares self-serving politicians to professional wrestlers

James Cameron directs Kathryn Bigelow in hilariously bad but sincere Bill Paxton 80's music video

Black Book

Back in the day, erstwhile Cameron mainstay Bill Paxton had a short lived band called Martini Ranch, for which Cameron directed this wild-west-themed video. In it, (Cameron's now-ex, and Oscar-winning Hurt Locker director Kathryn) Bigelow plays the leader of a group of female gunslingers who ride in to town and quickly rustle up some trouble. The song is regrettable, but the deliriously over-the-top video more than makes up for it. Look for cameos by Lance Henriksen, Paul Reiser, Jenette Goldstein, and Adrian Pasdar!

2 observations:
1)Personally, I can't believe Cameron, Bigelow or Paxton had a career after this.
2)Watch the opening scene, could this have been the birth of steampunk?

Gibbs: Health Care "Law Of The Land" Next Week; Axelrod To GOP: 'Try and take it away'

The White House is beginning its final push on health care this week, with senior adviser David Axelrod and press secretary Robert Gibbs making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows to express confidence that the bill will pass.

"We'll have the votes when the House votes, I think, within the next week," Gibbs said on "Fox News Sunday." "Whoever sits here at this time next week, I think will not be talking about health care as a proposal, but as the law of the land."

Asked by Tom Brokaw on "Meet The Press" whether Republicans would be able to run against health care in the 2010 elections, Axelrod told Republicans to bring it on.

If the Republican Party wants to go out and say to that child who now has insurance or say to that small business that will get tax credits this year if he signs the bill to help their employees get health care. If they want to say to them, "You know what? We're actually gonna take that away from you. We don't think that's such a good idea." I say, let's have that fight. Make my day. I'm ready to have that. And every member of Congress ought to be willing to have that debate as well.

Glenn Beck Denounces Springsteen's "Born In The USA" as Anti-American

Big Think

Twenty-six years after the release of Bruce Springsteen's hit song, "Born in The USA," conservative talk show host/performance artist Glenn Beck finally got around to listening to the lyrics.

Beck was shocked, shocked to discover that for all these years he'd been rocking out to a song about a bitter down-and-out Vietnam vet who has been kicked to the curb by the aforementioned USA.

Is Beck aware that conservative demigod Ronald Reagan used "Born in the USA" as a theme song for his reelection campaign? The cognitive dissonance is going to smart. Beck loves Reagan. "Because of Ronald Reagan, my grandfather, my father, I have hope for America," Beck told an audience at the conservative CPAC conference earlier this year.

Yesiree, The Gipper loved The Boss. Reagan thought Springsteen was a shining example of hope. According to Roadside America:

On the afternoon on September 19, 1984, President Ronald Reagan spoke before an enthusiastic crowd in downtown Hammonton, New Jersey. The speech was mostly political boilerplate, but it did contain one memorable passage. "America's future," Reagan said, "rests in the message of hope in songs of a man so many young Americans admire, New Jersey's Bruce Springsteen."

People even vaguely familiar with the songs of Bruce Springsteen know that they rarely contain messages of hope for America's future. But Reagan was oblivious.

Beck correctly senses that Springsteen didn't reciprocate Reagan's admiration. The campaign didn't get Springsteen's permission to use "Born in the USA" as a theme song. When the artist found out, he put a stop to it.

In the same video clip, Beck urges his viewers to wake up and realize that Woody Guthrie's beloved anthem "This Land is Your Land" is unpatriotic, despite the fact that we all sang it at summer camp, and the lyrics make perfect sense (even to Beck). I am not making this up.

Teabaggers keep pushing their hands farther into the racial fire

Thomas Frank, the author of What's The Matter With Kansas, examines the tea party movement and it's paranoid contradictions:

Huff Post

Not too long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers--when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings--when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work--you could be damned sure about what would follow.
Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: To the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed--unions, antitrust, public ownership--and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

So if it's not jobs, and land and health pushing them to the tea parties, what could it be?


There's also the less kinder view

Harry Reid: Reconcile This

Harry Reid's letter to Mitch McConnell, via Krugman/Ezra:

As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires. Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class. Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority. Either way, we disagree.

The health care polls are flawed, facts are bring twisted, you're being lied to and the media is letting it happen

Joel Benenson, president and co-founder of Benenson Strategy Group, and lead pollster to President Obama wrote this piece for the Washington Post.

No pollster, including me, could look at the recent data and responsibly say anything other than that the American public is closely divided when it comes to supporting or opposing various health-care plans. The most recent Washington Post poll (from Feb. 10) shows a narrow gap between support and opposition: 46 percent favor; 49 percent oppose. This data is consistent with eight of the 12 most recent independent public polls reported on Pollster.com.

In light of this data, it is irresponsible, and wrong... to assert that a "solid majority of Americans oppose" health-care reform.

In fact, two recent polls, including one with the most negative ratings on health care, reveal through follow-up questions that a significant number of people who oppose current plans do so because they don't go far enough rather than because they go too far. Not only is it absurd to suggest that these people would rise up against Democrats for passing the president's plan, it is far more likely that they would join others who support the plan and punish those who tried to block reform or voted against it.

Let's take the CNN poll from early January -- the most negative independent poll on health care and one that predated President Obama's proposal. Only 40 percent supported the bills passed by Congress, while 57 percent opposed them. But in a crucial follow-up question, a net of 10 percent of all Americans opposed the bill because it was "not liberal enough." If one makes the reasonable assumption that these people are far more likely to side with supporters of the president's plan than with Republicans who are obstructing it, the results would show that 50 percent favor the plan or want a broader one, while only 45 percent oppose the plan.

...
The central components of the plan -- a ban on denying coverage of preexisting conditions, closing the Medicare "doughnut hole" on the drug coverage gap for seniors, creating an insurance exchange in which small business and those without coverage could buy private insurance at competitive rates -- are all supported by solid majorities, from 60 percent to 81 percent.

There's no question that a majority of Americans oppose a government-run health system. But there is no government-run health care in the plan, and not a single American would be forced into any government-run program.

In politics, new information is always the most potent. When it comes to health care and insurance, once reform passes, the tangible benefits Americans will realize will trump the fear-mongering rhetoric opponents are stoking today.

And when that reality kicks in, the political burden will shift from those who supported the plan to those who voted against banning insurance companies from denying coverage to those who are sick, against the tax credits for small businesses offering coverage, or against helping seniors on Medicare pay less for prescription drugs.

It is no accident that Republican leaders are warning Democrats of dire political consequences if health reform passes.

But there is every reason to believe that for Republicans, the negative consequences will be their own.

Why Republicans should support health care. By a Republican

Ray LaHood/Chicago Tribune

I've been a Republican all my life, when I served in the Illinois legislature, when I worked for members of Congress and when I served in Congress. During the 2008 presidential election, I supported Republican Sen. John McCain. I have always been — and still am — a fiscal conservative, an advocate for a smart, but restrained, government.

For those reasons and others, most people wouldn't expect me to be an advocate for comprehensive health care reform. But the truth is, I believe there is no bigger issue to solve and no better chance to solve it than now.

If I were still a member of Congress, I would proudly vote for the bill that President Barack Obama is championing and I would urge my colleagues to do the same, not because I don't believe in fiscal discipline, but because I do.

Read more...

The formula for the BEST MOVIE TRAILER EVER!!!!

Destined to win the Academy Award for Awesomeness

Ignorant Texas Board of "education" cut Jefferson out of the history books

ThinkProgress

The Texas Board of Education has been meeting this week to revise its social studies curriculum. During the past three days, “the board’s far-right faction wielded their power to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the U.S. free enterprise system and hundreds of other topics”:

– To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board struck the curriculum’s reference to “sex and gender as social constructs.”

– The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”

– The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”

– The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.”

As the nation’s second-largest textbook market, Texas has enormous leverage over publishers, who often “craft their standard textbooks based on the specs of the biggest buyers.” Indeed, as The Washington Monthly has reported, “when it comes to textbooks, what happens in Texas rarely stays in Texas.”

Just secede already. You won't be missed. You're run by the American Taliban.

See also: Glenn W. Smith: Conservatives Re-Write Declaration of Independence