Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party- Official Tshirts, Sweatshirts, Hats, Mugs, Totes

Plan on attending one of the many Tax Day Tea Parties going on nationwide, but don’t know what to wear?  Get your Tax Day Tea Party Tshirts and other apparel by going to the American Nonsense store for your official “Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party” gear.  Time is running out so get your soon.

Even if you don’t plan on attending, you can show your support just by wearing one of these comfortable T-shirts, sweatshirts or hats. Let the current administration know that you will not stand for their mistreatment of the economy and are willing to be heard.  This April 15th, we as a nation have a chance to have our voices heard, just like on December 16, 1773 when colonists boarded the ship and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The Boston Tea Party was a protest of the British Parliament by colonists for what they felt violated their constitutional right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.

Samuel Adams argued that the Tea Party was not the act of a lawless mob, but was instead a principled protest and the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights.

This April 15th, and for the months that follow, show your support of all of the people that have fought to keep our nation great over the last 236 years since the original Tea Party.  Let people know that they are not alone, that their voices will be heard if we can all just come together.
Get your Official Tax Day Tea Party Gear Here

Sphere: Related Content

Technorati Tags: 2009, apparel, april 15, mug, nationwide, sweatshirt, tax day, tea party, tshirt

Is Washington Trying To Legislate Equillibrium In The Market Place?

<embed type=’application/x-shockwave-flash’ src=’http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf’ id=’mediumFlashEmbedded’ pluginspage=’http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer’ bgcolor=’#000000′ allowScriptAccess=’always’ allowFullScreen=’true’ quality=’high’ name=’undefined’ play=’false’ scale=’noscale’ menu=’false’ salign=’LT’ scriptAccess=’always’ wmode=’false’ height=’275′ width=’305′ flashvars=’playerId=videolandingpage&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=Glenn Beck&referralObject=4084331&referralParentPlaylistId=f2fbb2b0c994bbf2ba24f62ab95c596f8bd98bbc&referralPlaylistId=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50204809c04′ />

Sphere: Related Content

‘We Surround Them’ CRITICAL URGENT EMERGENCY UPDATE

[Throughout the day we have been bringing you breaking coverage of today's 'We Surround Them' event, newsperson Glenn Beck's effort to demonstrate the power of the ultraconservative movement via... um... well, we're not quite sure. It seems to be based on surrounding the rest of us by meeting at Chili's?]

CRITICAL EMERGENCY UPDATE — DAILY KOS EXCLUSIVE: Home again now. Home not surrounded. Neighbors seem placid, no surrounding seems imminent. Possible conservative flanking maneuver on 2nd street turned out to be loose dog.

Pictured: The conservative stages of grief. Hat tip Pluto.

[This has been a 'We Surround Them' update.]

Sphere: Related Content

No More “Enemy Combatants”

In a court filing in a case in which detainees are challenging their detention under last year’s Boumediene decision, the Obama Department of Justice has submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold Guantanamo detainees.

The Obama administration said Friday that it is abandoning one of President George W. Bush’s key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant The Justice Department said in legal filings that it will no longer use the term to justify holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

But that’s [sic] won’t change much for the detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba — Obama still asserts the military’s authority to hold them. But his Justice Department says that authority comes from Congress and the international laws of war, not from the president’s own wartime power as Bush had argued.

Essentially, the Obama administration is arguing that the authority to hold the detainees based on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. From the e-mailed brief:

The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.

The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.

It comes down to what “substantially supported” means in the eyes of the Obama Justice Department, and that wasn’t clearly defined in the brief. As of yet, according to the AP article, civil rights activists are skeptical.

In their lawsuits, detainees have argued that only those who directly participated in hostilities should be held.

“The argument should be rejected,” the Justice Department said in its filing. “Law-of-war principles do not limit the United States’ detention authority to this limited category of individuals. A contrary conclusion would improperly reward an enemy that violates the laws of war by operating as a loose network and camouflaging its forces as civilians.”

Retired Army Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a former Guantanamo official who has since become critical of the legal process, said it’s a change in nothing but semantics.

“There’s absolutely no change in the definition,” Abraham said in a telephone interview. “To say this is a kinder more benevolent sense of justice is absolutely false. … I think the only thing they’ve done is try to separate themselves from the energy of the debate” by eliminating Bush’s phrasing.

The ACLU’s Jonathan Hafetz adds:

While it is positive that the new administration has re-considered and narrowed the definition of an “enemy combatant,” the new definition is way too broad and, in critical respects, reflects a continuation of the prior administration’s wrongheaded and illegal detention policy.  In particular, it continues to treat terror suspects as a military, rather than criminal justice matter, and to claim the authority to seize and detain individuals captured beyond the battlefield indefinitely and without charges.

The substance of this change will be proven by how the administration moves forward in resolving the cases of the Guantanamo detainees. From an e-mailed press release from the administration:

In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons.  The government’s new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president’s authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

There are numerous detainees held based on “insignificant or insubstantial support” of terrorism, so this new definition should argue for their immediate release. It should provide even more impetus for the administration to step up the process of closing Guantanamo and providing a clear, legal process for dealing with the detainees.

Sphere: Related Content

LA-Sen: TSA Not Interested In Pampering Vitter: Senator Ducks Primary Challenge

Diaper Dave Vitter’s scramble to rehabilitate his public image hit a well-publicized snag last week when he attempted to crash the gate…of an aircraft set to take off without the Senator aboard.

The Louisiana senator arrived at his gate to find it already closed and then “opened the door, setting off a security alarm and prompting an airline worker to warn him that entering the gate was forbidden.” Vitter “gave the airline worker an earful, employing the timeworn ‘do-you-know-who-I-am’ tirade that apparently grew quite heated.”

His air rage has now provoked the ire of the TSA, which is apparently not interested in pampering Diaper Dave in the manner to which he is accustomed:

The Transportation Security Administration announced yesterday that it is reviewing a report that an angry Vitter set off an alarm at Dulles International Airport last week when he opened a security door to a jet bridge in his haste to make a United Airlines flight.

The TSA wouldn’t comment beyond its statement that it is “reviewing the alleged incident.” But airport security regulations stipulate that it is a Class 1 misdemeanor for an unauthorized person to enter a restricted area.

Maybe they’re overreacting, though. I mean, it’s not like we’ve had any compelling reasons in the last decade or so to think that airport security might be a serious concern worthy of major attention.

Seriously, sorry for bothering you, Senator. How dare anybody think that the safety of our aircraft may perhaps transcend the convenience of your travel schedule? How dare anybody even raise the spectre of you perhaps having to take a later flight like Normal People do?

So how did the Diaper Man manage to cop out this time?

Vitter, in a statement, admitted that he “accidentally went through a wrong door at the gate.”

Ah, yes. The, er, “wrong door”, to the right plane. The “wrong door” to the plane for which he had a ticket, the plane which was set to take off without him, the very plane he was trying to catch. It was an honest mistake! They have like 200 doors in this airport!

So far, it’s a “he said, she said” type of situation. That could change, however, if security cameras recorded the incident. Airport police officials declined to say whether such footage exists.

There’s a YouTube sensation waiting to happen.

Apparently, this is not the first time that Vitter’s temper has gone nuclear on some poor unsuspecting and undeserving target:

I was managing editor of Gambit Weekly in New Orleans by then and Vitter was making his first run for State Rep. We had a feature called “Scuttlebutt” which involved short, hard-news (i.e. not just gossip) snippets of behind-the-scenes political goings on. I wrote a series of scuttlebutts one week about Vitter’s race. Any reasonable person would come away from those scuttlebutts thinking Vitter was the candidate most on the ball, far and away. I reported things along the lines of Candidate A having taken the first step by hiring a campaign manager, and candidate B having just leased a campaign office, etc. Vitter, meanwhile, according to my report (this is from memory), had already done something like “blanketed every house in the district with not one but two pieces of glossy campaign literature touting his credentials and platform.”

Again, it was just straight reporting, but reporting that by any objective criteria made Vitter look good.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I got a phone call from David where he literally was yelling and occasionally cursing into my ear — so loudly that I literally had to hold the phone away from my head, about six inches from my ear — like he was absolutely unhinged. This went on for something like seven or eight minutes straight. Why was he so upset? Because, he said, my use of the word “glossy” — hey, uh, David, that is a type of paper, dude, as in do you want your photos glossy or matte? — was a deliberate attempt to insinuate that he was “slick and insubstantial.” How DARE I? I was a dirty, rotten, bleeping yellow journalist. Or so he yelled, or words to that effect.

As I said, he sounded unhinged. It was truly, 100 percent bizarre. And this was from a guy for whom, if I had lived in his legislative district, I probably would have voted (before this incident) because his credentials seemed stronger than the other good and worthy candidates in the race. But he was convinced that I was out to get him. Weird. Very very very very weird, and thoroughly unpleasant.

Well, look on the bright side, Dave: after various escapades involving prostitutes, diapers, and now violating airport security laws, your image is anything but glossy.

There’s one great piece of news for the incumbent Senator: former state Rep. Tony Perkins, now head of the Family Research Council, has decided to pass on a primary challenge to Vitter.

This hasn’t been a very good week for Louisiana Sen. David Vitter but it’s ending on a positive note: Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has decided not to challenge him in next year’s Republican primary.

“I am grateful for those who’ve encouraged me to consider returning to elected office, but this is not the right time,” wrote Perkins in a letter to state party chairman Roger Villere. “Along those lines, I would like members of the State Central Committee to know that I support Senator David Vitter’s bid for reelection in 2010.”

Perkins’ decision removes a major potential hurdle to Vitter’s chances at reelection in 2010. Not only had Perkins run for the Senate once before (he took 10 percent in a 2002 open primary) but his position as a leading social conservative also had the potential to shine a bright light on Vitter’s involvement in the “D.C. Madam” prostitution scandal in 2007.

It is looking increasingly likely that Vitter may not face a tough primary challenge after all; former Rep. John Cooksey has already bowed out. This leaves him open to focus on the Democrats in the race (the Post mentions Shaw Group CEO Jim Bernhard, former U.S. Rep. Don Cazayoux, and State Sen. Rob Marioneaux).

Should be interesting watching, if nothing else. Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Sphere: Related Content

Weak Tea

References to the Jim Cramer-Jon Stewart ‘debate’ in the closed caption data for MSNBC:

Wednesday, 5AM-7PM Eastern: 15
Friday, 5AM-7PM Eastern: 0 (excluding one question in live feed of WH daily briefing)

That doesn’t look good.

Sphere: Related Content

‘We Surround Them’ ALERT: Something Wicked This Way Comes

[Throughout the day we will be bringing you breaking coverage of today's 'We Surround Them' event, newsperson Glenn Beck's effort to demonstrate the raw power of the ultraconservative movement via barbecues, Chuck Norris, and threatening-sounding names for meaningless events.]

BREAKING: My dogs have been on high alert all day. Seriously on edge, like barnyard animals sensing a devastating storm on the horizon. Moments ago, they were viciously barking at the front window. Teeth gnashing and growling, as if Rupert Murdoch the devil himself were approaching. I closed the blinds and discreetly peered out the window — acutely aware I could be surrounded at that very moment.

And then I heard the familiar sound of my mail dropping through the slot and the mailman moved on to terrorize the neighbor’s dog.

Be vigilant people. Chuck Norris is practically a shape-shifter and could appear at any moment.

Pictured: Logo for ‘We Surround Them’ Day. Also international symbol for radioactive gonorrhea.

[This has been a 'We Surround Them' update. Keep checking throughout the day for important updates as to the status of whether or not we are surrounded.]

Sphere: Related Content

Cheers and Jeers: Rum and Coke FRIDAY!

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE…

Renegade Republicans On the Loose!!!

Nestled in the op-ed pages of yesterday’s Portland Press Herald was a crackling defense of the Employee Free Choice Act, written by “a state legislator and a small business owner.” It’s one of those columns you want to email to everyone you know because it’s just so darn good. I mean, talk about a classic example of the plain-spoken Mainer:

Who brought us the weekend? Unions. Who rose with unions? The middle class. It just makes sense.

Tens of millions of workers would join a union if they could. The problem is that if they try, and their employer resists, workers have only about a 20 percent chance of success. This is because the current system for forming a union is unfairly tilted in the employer’s favor.  That’s just wrong. It’s un-American and one more example of greed and power run amok.

Boo-yah! They also have a few words for Republican lawmakers and the various weak-willed Dems who have started waffling over their support of the EFCA due to pressure from the sweaty-browed swine lobbying dishonestly on behalf of Big Bid’ness:

[The] opposition has taken the form of a multimillion-dollar misinformation campaign. The prime example is the role of the secret ballot election.

Corporate interest groups claim the Employee Free Choice Act will eliminate elections as part of the union organizing process. This is simply false. The bill explicitly preserves and protects workers’ rights to hold a secret ballot election when forming a union. The difference is that it is their choice whether to do so—not the corporations’ or CEOs’.

And the grand finale:

Restoring the freedom of workers to form unions can play a central role in rebuilding a strong middle class that can drive the next era of American economic strength. When workers – from janitors to health-care workers – have been able to form unions, we see positive results for employees, for employers and for the public they serve.

The column, by the way, was written by state Rep. James Campbell Sr. and Kids First president Penni Theriaut. Republicans both.

Bravo.

Your west coast-friendly edition of Cheers and Jeers starts in There’s Moreville… [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Sphere: Related Content

Late afternoon/early evening open thread

Coming up on Sunday Kos ….

• Scout Finch will examine the Twitter phenomenon and the growing twittering class of pundits and politicians.
• Devilstower will look at why “running or government like a business” is a bad idea, even in good times.
• Arjun Jaikumar/brownsox will channel the Spirit of ‘76.
• SusanG will review two books that look at the economic crisis and how we got here: Dean Baker’s Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy and George A. Akerlof’s and Robert J. Shiller’s Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism.

Sphere: Related Content

Not Quite Liveblogging Glenn Beck

Well, the cornerstone of the Glenn Beck’s ‘We Surround Them‘ event, an event predicated on everyone going to a bar, restaurant, barbecue or senior center and listening to Glenn Beck whine for an hour, has already passed. Being safely in my bunker, I could not liveblog it as it happened, so here are my own notes for pseudoliveblogging. It’s just like liveblogging, only not live.

+20 mins in or so: this is already just plain… sad. It’s the Conservative Sad Emo Porn Hour: my only conclusion is that Glenn Beck is seriously nuts. He’s got a Troy McClure, Planet of the Apes vibe going, and I keep expecting him to break into song.

    ”Oh my God! I was wrong!
    It was earth — all along!
    Oh they finally made a monkey
        (yes we finally made a monkey!)
    Oh they finally made a monkey
        out of meeeeeeee!”

+whatever more mins: Oh, c’mon? Chuck Norris? Really? I can tell you right now, I could have both legs cut off, be trapped in a ditch, wolves closing in on me, every one of those wolves with a Rick Astley CD tied around their neck, and I still wouldn’t want lifestyle advice from Chuck Freakin’ Norris. Of all the hundreds of American figures in history I admire, he is… not among them. I like my heros to be heroic in the real world, not in the comfortable confines of a fictional, long-since-dead television series. If you’re part of a movement that can’t stop bitching about Hollywood being too involved in politics, then stop looking for patriotism lessons from freakin’ Hollywood actors.

+50 mins or so: Well, I have no idea what the overall “plot” of Beck’s little program is supposed to be, other than John Galt Pity Party.

Seriously — how did this happen?  How did the party of fuck-you-all, we’re-in-charge turn into such a whiny-ass group of losers?  And what the flying monkey hell is he rebelling against? As far as I can tell, the only thing he actually gives a crap about is that maybe his freakin’ taxes will get raised a few percent, back to (shudder) pre-Bush levels, and that’s such a f’ing affront to the very republic that it causes him to burst into tears and sob about how we’ve let all the troops down by “redistributing wealth” from rich assholes like him to a few kids needing free school lunches.

So basically, it’s all about using the memory of 9/11 and dead American soldiers to justify bitching about his taxes. That’s his freakin’ “movement”.

He’s like a televangelist, either right before or right after the obligatory I-have-sinned-against-you-and-had-teh-buttsex speech. I can’t even make fun of him, it’s just too sad. He’s still the same belligerent, self-centered, fearmongering screw-you goon as always, but he’s been so badly gutchecked by a single election that didn’t go his way that he’s going to go all emo on us for the next few years.

Christ, Beck, where ya been? The only difference between your supposedly Deeply Held Principles and mine is that I kept my principles the same no matter who was in charge. I never needed a fuckin’ map to tell me dissent from the majority wasn’t unpatriotic, and I never needed to have a 12-step-program styled event to tell me whether or not I loved my country.

If this is any indication, by the end of Obama’s presidency Fox News and Trinity Broadcasting are going to be the exact same network. They’ll be selling cheap trinkets, cheap pity, and advice on how to cheat on your taxes… because that’s what God and our dead soldiers would want you to do.

And for the record, I still ain’t surrounded.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »