Yea, You Know They're Gonna Try...

A week or so ago, Rolling Stone published this:

To whit: 

In recent months, Trump has convened a series of in-person meetings and conference calls to discuss laying the groundwork to challenge the 2022 midterm election results, four people familiar with the conversations tell Rolling Stone. In these conversations, pro-Trump groups, attorneys, Republican Party activists, and MAGA diehards often discuss the type of scorched-earth legal tactics they could deploy. 

And they’ve gamed out scenarios for how to aggressively challenge elections, particularly ones in which a winner is not declared on Election Night. If there’s any hint of doubt about the winners, the teams plan to wage aggressive court campaigns and launch a media blitz. Trump himself set the blueprint for this on Election Night 2020, when — with the race far from decided — he went on national television to declare: “Frankly, we did win this election.”

Over at Elon's place, J.J. Abbott tweeted:

What is your media outlet doing to be prepared not to amplify false, misleading and anti-democratic narratives about Pennsylvania’s election and results?

— J.J. Abbott 📮 (@jjabbott) October 28, 2022

J. J. (Hey, J.J.! Do you prefer "Good Times" or "Abbot and Costello" references? 'Cause I got both.) follows that up with a couple of good sources for info.

Mediamatters:

Leigh Chapman, Pennsylvania’s top election official explained during a Wednesday interview that because of a state law that does not allow officials to begin counting mail-in ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day, results for Pennsylvania’s gubernatorial and U.S. Senate elections might not be available for “days” afterwards. Since Democrats are more likely to trust and participate in mail-in voting while Republicans are more likely to vote in-person, early tabulations could show Republican candidates with a lead that is then whittled down as mail-in ballots are tabulated over time.

And (as far as this non-expert can tell) this is the law that says so.

From Title 25 § 3146.8 

[1.1] The county board of elections shall meet no earlier than seven o'clock A.M. on election day to pre-canvass all ballots received prior to the meeting.

And: 

[2] The county board of elections shall meet no earlier than the close of polls on the day of the election and no later than the third day following the election to begin canvassing absentee ballots and mail-in ballots not included in the pre-canvass meeting.

 Something the Republican led legislature could have changed, but they didn't.

Negotiations between the Republican-led legislature and Gov. Tom Wolf to let counties begin opening mail ballots in Pennsylvania before Election Day appeared to collapse Wednesday, setting up a potential nightmare scenario that some fear could leave the state counting millions of ballots for days after Nov. 3.

The Democratic governor and legislative leaders had been negotiating behind closed doors as recently as Tuesday to change the election code after months of inaction. But the General Assembly adjourned Wednesday and is not scheduled to reconvene until Nov. 10, a week after the election.

So next time you hear your crazy MAGA friends question the authenticity of the "sudden" influx of "democrat votes" posted a day or so after election day, now you know that this is a situation the Republicans in Harrisburg could have changed, but simply chose not to.

They want it this way so they can wail about "election integrity."

Abbot also posted this link.

Let's take a look at what PA has to say about:

Ballot Security:

Ballots cast in PA are subject to strict security measures known as chain-of-custody requirements. Votes cannot be added, changed or deleted. Election results are audited for accuracy.

Learn more

Voting Machines:

PA counties choose what voting systems they use. Federal and state laws require counties have verifiable, auditable paper records and that voting machines are kept secure and tested for accuracy.

Learn how

And remember, when our MAGA friends start in on Act 77, remind them that both the GOP led House and GOP led Senate voted for it.

Including St Sen (and right wing nut job) Doug Mastriano and St Rep (and right wing nut job) Daryl Metcalfe.

J. J. posted two good sources of info so take your pick (I'll take the shovel.)

My profound Apologies: I could not resist the Abbott and Costello joke.

Wendy Bell's Conspiracy Theory (SPOILER: It's Wide And Deep And Batshit Crazy)

 On Thanksgiving Day, Radio Karen aired Wendy Bell's explanation to her audience the only plausible explanation (as she saw it) for Donald Trump's election loss - a vast and mighty multi-level corruption.

Yes, it's as batshit crazy and you can imagine.

No, wait. Strike that. It's even more batshit crazy than you can imagine.

But first, let me get a little something out of the way. At about 5:00 in, Wendysplains Rudy Giuliani at Gettysburg this week:

Think about the significance of Gettysburg. Where 157 years ago - what, just last week - pivotal things were happening in this fledgling country. Where people wanted to push the expansion of slavery west and and others said, "No, we ought not own people. We are free people we are one people." And brothers fought against brothers, neighbors against neighbors in the bloodiest three days of the Civil War in what ultimately would be the turning point of the war.

Hang on, is Wendy saying that The Battle of Gettysburg was 157 years ago last week? It certainly looks like the more-factualier-than-thou Wendy Bell is saying exactly that.

Too bad The Battle of Gettysburg took place in early July of 1863 - about 4 and a half months before November of 1863. What took place 157 years ago,"just last week" was The Gettysburg Address.

How did you miss this one, Wendy? Your credibility as someone who gets her facts right has just taken a bit of a hit, right?

But let's move on to Wendy's vast batshit conspiracy. At 9:54 in on the video, she says: 

The media, not only the democrats in the elected political party in office but all of you with Biden Harris yard signs you are complicit in what must be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on American soil and that is the thieving of the 2020 general election.

See that? Everyone who voted for Biden is complicit in the fraud! How short a step would it be from this to "Toss all the votes from those who are complicit!"

At 11:57 in Wendy sets a time frame for the conspiracy:

This has been a deliberate planned fraud. The effort to overtake the 2020 election and to secure Joe Biden's victory was not something that was hatched on November 2^nd. It wasn't something that was born of Covid. Covid was a very convenient manipulating factor but this is something that has been in the works for years - I dare say decades - and it is the brazen boldness of the left - of the democrat, socialist, Marxist, communist left. [Emphasis added.]

Decades! This "planned fraud" has been in the works for decades, says Wendy. For decades!

And so how big is this conspiracy?

At 13:00, Wendy illuminates the deep darkness for us:

The primary tool of this fraud was one singular thing and that was the push for mail-in ballots. That was the way they could control how far behind Joe Biden was going to be and control how he would swing back. Of course there are many mechanisms of that, You need to have a lot of players, ladies and gentlemen. You need to have law enforcement. You need to have court officials. You need to have elections officials. You need to have legislators. You need to have a very vast network of collusion in order to pull off perhaps the greatest stunt in American history.

Huh. So this is who's also in on the conspiracy, according to Wendy:

• Law enforcement
• Court officials
• Elections officials
• Legislators

Wow. All those folks in on this decades-old conspiracy to win Pennsylvania for Joe Biden in 2020. Wendy, you indeed have a dizzying intellect.

And how high does this conspiracy go?

At 13:43 Wendy says:

So the mail-in ballots and this is where Pennsylvania, the land before time, is the greatest example of corruption we are the armpit of American corruption. And you can thank none other than our Supreme Court here in this Commonwealth. Five democrats two Republicans. 

This is what they did to grease the skids of the 2020 general election; They set the table for the scheme which was executed by our Secretary of State none other than the wholly corrupt Kathleen Boockvar. 

Number one. They redrew the legislative districts in this Commonwealth - which is not legal or lawful to do - redrew the districts. 

Number two. They rewrote the law and pushed something called Act 77 to push mail-in ballots without an excuse. It used to be that if you needed an absentee ballot or you needed to vote by mail you had to provide a legitimate reason. Act 77 waived that and said, “Nope this is the way we're doing it this is the way it's going to be.” That's unlawful period. 

And finally they established drop boxes for ballots and these drop boxes, ladies and gentlemen, were highly concentrated in Democrat districts, Philadelphia Pittsburgh and not in Republican districts. Furthermore these ballot drop boxes were never monitored so people who are only by law allowed to deposit their ballot were seen delivering 20 30 40 or more. That is the beginning of ballot stuffing.

Thanks, Wendy! Now we can unweave the roots of the conspiracy!

Let's start with the gerrymandering. In 2017 The League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit challenging the 2011 restructuring of Pennsylvania's Congressional Districts, alleging that they unconstitutionally favored the Republican Party. The Commonwealth Court that year found that while the new districts favored the GOP, this was not illegal. The case went to the PA Supreme Court (the table setters for the current electoral fraud) and on Jan 22, 2018 they ruled that:

First, the Court finds as a matter of law that the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and, on that sole basis, we hereby strike it as unconstitutional.

Does Wendy not know that the congressional districts are (or at least can be) redrawn every decade? So her charge that it's "not legal or lawful" to change them is simply (and laughably) incorrect. How does arbiter of the truth Wendy Bell not know this?

So Wendy, this is another hit on your mostly nonexistent credibility, right?

In any event, Wendy Bell said that the PA Supreme Court "set the table" for Biden's electoral fraud wa-a-a-y back in January of 2018 with this decision.

Do I need to point out that Vice-President Biden announced his candidacy about 13 and a half months after the PA Supreme Court declared the 2011 gerrymandered districts to be unconstitutional? Or that it would be three more months before he would have secured the necessary delegates for the nomination?

So how did this work, Wendy? Did Biden command the PA Supreme Court to do his bidding knowing that he'd be announcing more than a year later? And they paid attention to him even though he wouldn't get the necessary delegates for another 3 months after that?? Or did they command him?

Wow. That's amazingly deep planning on his part, Wendy. Kudos for being sharp enough to connect all those otherwise unconnectable dots.

Then there's Act 77. This bipartisan bit of legislation passed both houses of the Republican controlled Pennsylvania legislature in October of 2019:

• House 138-61. By the way, this includes Daryl Metcalfe and Mike Turzai
• Senate 30-20. By the way, this includes Joe Scarnati and Douglas Mastriano
  

The part of the legislation that so offends Wendy the part about mail in voting. As Gov Wolf put it:

The law creates a new option to vote by mail without providing an excuse, which is currently required for voters using absentee ballots. Pennsylvania joins 31 other states and Washington, D.C. with mail-in voting that removes barriers to elections.

And evidently, it was good enough for Metcalfe, Turzai, Scarnati and Mastriano, But Wendy Bell thinks it's illegal.

Wendy, are those four part of this "vast network of collusion" you described? Are these four among those who are part of your the decades old scheme to get Joe Biden into the White House? Did they know that they were voting for unlawful legislation? Will you be confronting them with this information? When?

And finally the drop boxes. Doesn't Wendy Bell know that this has been litigated already? Take a look:

Therefore, as this case presently stands,only three claims remain.First, whether the use of so-called “drop boxes” for mail-in ballots is unconstitutional, given the lack of guidance or mandates that those drop boxes have security guards to man them. Second, whether the Secretary’s guidance as to mail-in ballots—specifically, her guidance that county election boards should not reject mail-in ballots where the voter’s signature does not match the one on file—is unconstitutional. Third, whether Pennsylvania’s restriction that poll watchers be residents in the county for which they are assigned, as applied to the facts of this case, is unconstitutional.

And:

After a careful review of the parties’ submissions and the extensive evidentiary record, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Defendants on all of Plaintiffs’ federal-constitutional claims, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-constitutional claims, and dismiss this case.

The "Defendents" in this case are Secretary of State Boockvar et al and the "Plaintiff's" are Trump et al.

Trump already lost this fight, Wendy. Didn't you know? But this triggers the bigger question. You mention that "court officials" are in on this fraud, right? The author of the above decision oking the use of drop boxes is Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan. He was appointed by Donald Trump to that court in 2018. Is he in on the corruption, too?

Wendy, have you ever heard about something called "Occam's Razor"? It's a philosophical "rule" that states, in effect, that the simpler explanation is probably the more correct one (you'll forgive my over-generalization). So we have two explanations for Biden's win over Trump.

• Wendy Bell's - who states that Biden didn't win. He cheated. And that a huge number of individuals (including some very prominent Pennsylvania conservatives) are in on the cheat.
• Biden actually won.

Wendy, given how complicated (and heretofore invisible) your conspiracy theory is, don't you think the simpler explanation (that Biden won) is more likely correct? 

Yea, I know. That's funny. Logic doesn't work on Wendy Bell, does it?

But someone has to say this.

Meanwhile, Outside...

From the scientists at NOAA:

The year 2019 was the second warmest year in the 140-year record, with a global land and ocean surface temperature departure from average of +0.95°C (+1.71°F). This value is only 0.04°C (0.07°F) less than the record high value of +0.99°C (+1.78°F) set in 2016 and 0.02°C (0.04°F) higher than the now third highest value set in 2015 (+0.93°C / +1.67°F). The five warmest years in the 1880–2019 record have all occurred since 2015, while nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005. The year 1998 currently ranks as the 10 warmest year on record. The year 2019 marks the 43rd consecutive year (since 1977) with global land and ocean temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.

And:

The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and over twice that rate (+0.18°C / +0.32°F) since 1981.

But here in Pennsylvania, the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee is chaired by a prominent climate science denier, Daryl Metcalfe.

Longtime fans of this blog will know of darling Daryl by his many appearances here.

As recently as last month, Metcalfe described climate science as, "the same unsettled Chicken Little fear-mongering regarding ‘man-made’ climate change."

Did you know that there's a petition to Pennsylvania House Speaker Mike Turzai calling on Metcalfe's removal as chair of that committee?

Well, there is.

No matter what Daryl Metcalfe says, it's still getting warmer out there.

More On Daryl Metcalfe - A Follow-up To Yesterday

Yesterday, when State Rep Daryl Metcalfe was showing exactly the level of legislative transparency he's willing to offer when defending his right to gerrymander, his legislation was protested (an act, I am told, is still protected by the First Amendment).

Well, Brother Daryl had a reaction to one of those protests:

This desecration of our flag is another blatant example of the intolerant left’s disrespect toward our nation, our flag, and our veterans! pic.twitter.com/Rz6pblTLw8

— Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (@RepMetcalfe) April 11, 2018

This is the flag that so offended him:

Despite the fact that the above is obviously First Amendment protected political speech, it's just as obvious that Metcalfe is taking 36 U.S.C.§176 very seriously:

(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

So I take it he'll be denouncing this soon (if he hasn't already):

Or this:

That last image pivots to another section of 36 U.S.C.§176:

(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.

So I suppose Rep Metcalfe will be denouncing this disrespect for the flag:

Look at the shawl! It's an American Flag and SHE CUT TWO HOLES THROUGH IT. Furthermore, the above mentioned flag code clearly states:

(b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as...water....

Wouldn't her shoulders count? Her hair? And what if she beings to sweat? Isn't sweat mostly water? She slashed an American flag (twice!) and has put it in a position to soak up her armpit sweat.

How can that possibly be acceptable to a proud defender of the flag like State Rep Daryl Metcalfe? When can we expect him to denounce these violations of the flag code?

More On Daryl Metcalfe - He's Fighting For The Freedom To Gerrymander!

From The Tribune-Review:

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, led an effort Wednesday to gut a bill that would have created an independent commission of citizens to draw electoral maps instead of leaving the process to legislators.

Metcalfe, chairman of the House State Government Committee, called a surprise morning meeting and introduced an amendment to the proposal that completely changed what the legislation would do.

But wait, there's more. From the Lehigh Valley Live, a letter:

Talk about a blatant power grab by the Republicans in the Pennsylvania State House. At 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, without prior notice of what was going to be voted upon by House State Government Committee, state Rep. Daryl Metcalf, the committee chairman, handed out an amendment to House Bill 722. There were no discussion, no hearings and no testimony by the sponsors of HB 722. It was passed on a strict party-line vote.

Wanna talk legislative transparency? We'll start here.

So what does this Metcalfian-fiasco do?

From The Morning Call - current law:

Under current law, the state’s mapmaking commission consists of five members. The Legislature picks four and the Supreme Court one. The governor has veto authority over the congressional map, not the state legislative map. Either map could be appealed to the state courts.

But then the State Supreme Court ruled the current set of Congressional districts unconstitutional because it unfairly favored the GOP.

HB 722 proposed a new 11 member commission. Again from the Morning Call:

Four of the members would come from the state’s largest political party, which current voter registration records show is Democratic. Another four would come from the party with the second highest number of registered voters, Republicans. The remaining three members would come from minor parties.

Adding that no one on the commission "could not be related to any statewide or congressional official or lobbyist."

Of those who qualify, a random sampling of 40 names is made. The legislature's top caucus officials could veto up to 6 names each.

Sounds like a good idea. No one is beholden to the current unbalanced process. The legislative districts would be fair(er).

So what did Daryl Metcalfe propose in its place? This:

You'll note that instead of 11 people unconnected to "any statewide or congressional official or lobbyist" the commission will be made up of already elected Senators and House Representatives chosen in such a way as to unerringly favor a party that controls both houses (and in this case by a complete and utter coincidence, of course, that just happens to be Metcalfe's GOP).

And if the committee can't agree on a map then the whole Assembly votes on the draft. And who controls both houses at this time?

What a coincidence: Again, it's Metcalfe's GOP!

With no discussion, hearings or input from the authors of the original legislation, it passed by on a party-line vote (meaning Metcalfe's GOP).

And this is considered "neutral" to Daryl Metcalfe - and something not at all a tyrannical subversion of the process to favor some "partisan agenda."

From The Trib:

“The amended House Bill 722 would ensure that neutral, locally focused criteria would remain the only standard by which a map could be judged, preventing any activist Supreme court from tyrannically subverting these criteria to its own preferred partisan agenda,” Metcalfe said in a statement.

See?

More On Daryl Metcalfe (Part II)

I gotta, I just gotta.

So how far has State Rep Daryl Metcalfe's "I'm definitely not gay" rant gone?

This far:

• CNN
• NBC
• Daily News
• The Advocate
• Time
• Salon.com
• Conservative Daily Post

Luckily, Penn Live has followed up with interviews of each.

First, Metcalfe (who's hinting at some sort of legal recourse, I think). It's interesting that he's profoundly in favor of a person's right not to be touched, a defense of their personal sovereignty. Funny, then, that he's still such a big fan of the pussy-grabber in the Oval Office. Huh.


Second, Matt Bradford, (who's trying his best to be cordial and civil in the face of an uncordial and uncivil man). How difficult must it be to try to deal with a nut job who, as he says, can go off the rails at any moment?


Note to Rep. Bradford: DEFCON 5 is the lowest state of readiness. You probably meant DEFCON 1.

More On Daryl Metcalfe - Who's Definitely Not Gay.

As the OPJ pointed out yesterday, State Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Straightville) had a bit of a meltdown over being (gasp!) touched by a man.

In response, he defended his most sacred honor by declaring to everyone in that room that he is definitely a straight man, a man's man, a heterosexual man - that he's just a regular straight guy who loves his wife (who's a woman, by the way). It's obvious, isn't it? I mean he said it with such thrusting power.

You can go to Maria's post to see the video in all its glory.

Now I'm curious to see how far the story's gotten. Apart from the expected local Pennsylvania coverage this story's made it to:

• Washington Post 
• Huffingtonpost 
• The Daily Caller
• Chicago Tribune
• International Business Times
• QX (this is from Sweden) 

The P-G's coverage has this:

“Representative Bradford,” said Mr. Metcalfe, interrupting Mr. Bradford in mid-sentence. “Look, I’m a heterosexual. I have a wife, I love my wife. I don’t like men, as you might. But stop touching me all the time.”

He then added: “It’s like, keep your hands to yourself. Like, if you want to touch somebody, you have people on your side of the aisle that might like it. I don’t.”

It's interesting to see what Metcalfe uses as a counter to what he obviously thinks is an attack on his manhood and his masculinity, "No, I'm not, I'm not! But maybe you (and your fellow Democrats) are!!"

If he weren't a politician he could, maybe, find work at a movie theatre.

Dear Men, Daryl Metcalfe wants you to know he is not your plaything!

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Conservative state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe wants everyone to know that he's a heterosexual, has a wife and doesn't want to be touched - at least not by a male colleague. 

The Republican from Butler County made that very clear Tuesday during a meeting of the House committee he chairs.

And there's video!



This is even more pathetic than the time, a few years ago, when he appeared on Night Talk and after going into the standard "homosexuality is a choice" rant, the host asked him if he had chosen to be heterosexual. Metcalfe answered that yes, he "chose heterosexuality" (here and in the comments here).

While these incidents are almost cartoonishly and jaw-droppingly funny, never forget that Metcalfe is also a nasty, evil, and dangerous little fuck:

Openly gay Pennsylvania state Representative Brian Sims (D) planned to speak on the legislature floor on Wednesday about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act — but he was blocked from talking by a Republican colleague who said his comments would be “open rebellion against God’s law.” 

Now, Sims is asking for a reprimand of his Republican colleague. Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R), who is known for his inflammatory remarks, also blocked two of Sim’s colleagues who wanted to speak about DOMA, and openly admitted that his religious beliefs compelled him not to let Sims speak.

Obviously, Metcalfe doth protest too much on this subject, as anyone who protests this much has to secretly be the gayest man on the planet. Just waiting for his "wide stance" moment when he's finally outed. It can't come soon enough!

The Company Metcalfe Keeps, Part II

Pennsylvania State Rep. Daryl "I Don't Speak Mexican" Metcalfe (R-Pennsyltucky) is more 'Merican than you or I could ever hope to be! The man sweats red, white & blue! He's always busy keeping 'Merica for 'Mericans! His latest efforts occurred on Monday when according to Eat That, Read This (#275):

• Distended scumtroll Republican State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, chairman of the House State Government Committee, denied colleague Rep. Leslie Acosta, "herself an immigrant and the state's only Latina legislator," her allotted speaking time as she "attempted to lay out her argument" against the shiteous English-only bill, interrupting her and then cutting off her microphone. Metcalfe, who is a white, straight, Christian human-shaped agglomeration of dog shit animatronically operated by a groundhog, used the same tactic against another minority colleague in 2013, when Gay Fantasy Boyfriend™ State Rep. Brian Sims attempted to speak "about the Supreme Court's gay marriage rulings," informing us that "his religious views against gay marriage compelled him to do it." Fuck Daryl Metcalfe.

But, True Patriot Metcalfe is even more 'Merican than stopping Latinas from speaking. According to Talking Points Memo, Metcalfe invited a white supremacist white nationalist to be a witness for his bill on Monday:

A Pennsylvania lawmaker objected to accusations that he had invited a white supremacist to testify in front of a committee by clarifying that the witness was merely a white nationalist. 

The witness, Robert "Bob" Vandervoort, appeared at a hearing Monday on a bill to make English the official state language, the Patriot-News reported, prompting state Rep. Leslie Acosta (D) to allege that the committee had invited a white supremacist. 

[snip]

The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Vandervoort as being tied "to white nationalist groups." But, as the Patriot-News noted, the center characterizes white nationalist groups as espousing "white supremacist or white separatist ideologies." 

Metcalfe also said, "For whoever said the man was white to begin with, that person was actually the racist -- tying his skin color to his patriotism and what he stands up for for his country."

Yes, you say "to-may-toe" and I say "to-mah-toe" and Metcalfe says pointing out racism is racist!

And why is this post titled "Part II"? Because when Metcalfe is not busy inviting white supremacists white nationalists to speak (and shutting up Latinas and Gays), he is cavorting with people who call for elected Democrats to swing from ropes.

In 2010, he invited Jeff Lewis, national director, Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Coalition (FIRE), to stand with him at a press conference to promote PA House Bill 2479 which patterned itself after Arizona's controversial "Papers, Please" legislation. Here's the type of thing that Lewis writes:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and other Members of Congress ignore the Constitution on a daily basis, and knowingly give support and comfort to special interest groups, foreign governments and the illegal alien insurgents they encourage to invade the United States, and betray everything their oath of office represents. Ask your governor, your federal and state judges why these traitors aren’t swinging from a rope? [Emphasis added]

God Bless 'Merica! God Bless Pennsyltucky! And God Bless Daryl Metcalfe!

Right Wing Freak-Outs Over Marriage Equality

Let's start a World Net Daily.

First there's editor-in-chief Joseph Farah:

This was not a legal decision. It was a political edict by five men and women in black robes who really believe in their “supremacy.” In short, they believe they are wiser than God who created the institution of marriage and a union of a man and a woman.

To Farah the freedom described in Kennedy's decision will surely lead to polygamy and legalized incest.  Oh yea and then there's this:

Does Kennedy understand liberty apart from God’s moral code brings on horrors like were experienced during the French Revolution?

That's right.  Godless liberty (like getting out of the way of Adam and Steve want to marry) will march us all (or perhaps only the soon-to-be persecuted Christians) to the scaffold.

And Farah knows that God's not happy about this.  Nope.  Not one bit:

As a Christian, I also believe we will be hearing from the author of marriage soon.

I don’t know what form that message will come, but it is certain to be heard sooner rather than later.

America’s elite leadership have taken the side of the enemies of God, and He will take notice.

It could come in the form of an economic crash. It could come in more civil and racial strife along the lines of what has been building in recent years. It could come in the form of an attack on our country from foreign power or terrorist group.

I suspect it will something big. I take no comfort in passing along this warning. It’s just the pattern that God uses to bring His people to repentance for their own good.

There's also this about the president.  It's from something they've taken to call the "Obama Insect Chronicles."  Take a look:

It has happened again. Barack Obama, whose encounters of the buzzing kind have been noted numerous times during his presidency, had another episode Friday as he was praising same-sex “marriage” at the White House.

Obama is talking about how in America people can write their own destiny when the fly lands on his shoulder and makes itself at home.

He continues speaking, and the fly wanders around the shoulder of his suit.

“Today we can say, in no uncertain terms … we’ve made our union a little more perfect,” he says of the Supreme Court ruling that created same-sex “marriage” across America based on the 14th Amendment, which was adopted to make sure blacks were treated equally after the Civil War.

And then the fly flies off.

So what's the significance of the flies?  Oh, Lord take a look.  It's comedy gold:

The flurry of incidents prompted radio and TV host Glenn Beck to say in 2010: “How many times have rodents crossed your path, flies landed on your face, or bees strangely swarmed in your presence? But our president, at one of the most meticulously maintained houses, it seems to be happening all the time. Why? I don’t know, but someone does. … A swarm of [bees] hovered as he was leaving the White House to play basketball. He went inside and they were gone. How does this happen? Oh, I don’t know. But the bees know.”

In January 2013, WND reported prophecy websites were having a field day with the worldwide attention Obama received for sparring with a fly.

Religious and other websites used the headlines to point out that a biblical reference for Satan, the Semitic deity Beelzebub, literally translates from Hebrew into “Lord of the Flies.”

So Obama equals Beelzebub because of all the flies.  This little story made it big locally as well a few years ago.  It was particularly embarrassing for Rose Tennent:

On their June 25 radio program, Pittsburgh hosts Rose Tennent and Jim Quinn read a listener's email that speculated Obama may be "evil," or an "enemy of the USA," citing evidence from Beck's June 23 Fox News show. Tennent then asked: "Isn't there something ... weird about that? Like all the insects and the rodents come out for this man, or something. Like they're attracted to him. You know like those devil movies ... Like they're attracted to the devil or something."

Since we've circled back locally, let's check in with someone I would assume was a huge Quinn and Rose fan.  From Pennlive:

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Butler County Republican and long one of the most outspoken social conservatives in the Legislature, blasted the court's decisions on marriage and health care this week as setting a new high water mark for activist judges.

Taken together, he said, the decisions "really amplify the fact that what we are seeing from the United State Supreme Court now is nothing short of judicial tyranny."

Speaking more specifically about the marriage decision, Metcalfe continued: "It shows what tyrants they are when they think that they can place themselves above God's law, above natural law, and above the will of the American people as we've seen it expressed in state after state after state."

Metcalfe's reference was to the fact that, including today's rulings, same sex marriage has become legal in most U.S. jurisdictions only through court rulings that have overridden laws put in place by elected officials or voter-approved initiatives.

I know facts really aren't Daryl's friends but in a recent poll done before yesterday's ruling for the NBC News/Wall Street Journal, 57% of those polled favored the Supreme Court deciding that " gays have a constitutional right to marry" and another recent poll done for CBS News/New York Times showed that 57% of those polled said that it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry.

So I guess Daryl's wrong about that whole "will of the American people" thing.  In any case let me touch back on a worry that Farah has:

We’ve already seen this same-sex marriage issue used, including by this same court, to portray anyone who dissents from the redefining of marriage as a bigot, a hater, a maladjusted rogue, an enemy of the people.

At least in the case of Joey Farah, the good folks at WND and our good friend Daryl Metcalfe, I'd have to ask: Yea, and your point is?

Daryl Metcalfe And Neo-Succesionist Nullification

Today, I start with this piece at the Huffingtonpost by Charles J. Reid, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas. He starts by denouncing the so-called "Confederate Flag"and then turns the course of his argument a bit:

But we should go deeper than asking for symbolic change, as important as that is. I'd like in particular to call attention to a troubling development found mostly in deep red, Republican states, and that is the unholy marriage between Confederate ideology and the Second Amendment.

The bond that unites Confederate ideology and the Second Amendment is the idea of "nullification." This is the belief that the states are the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not constitutional and that the states are thus always free to ignore federal law. States and not the courts, on this warped view of the Constitution, judge what is or is not constitutional.

And he frames "nullification" in to a 19th Century historical context:

Nullification, in other words, was a prominent feature of the constitutional theory that justified the Confederacy. It was a doctrine finally repudiated by the Civil War and by the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

What does this history have to do with the Second Amendment? Simply this: Nullification, a concept that should have died a century and a half ago, has been resurrected from the tomb by gun-rights extremists and is triumphing in legislature after legislature in America's deep-red states.

Not so fast, Bub.  Maybe not even in some deep-red states.  And for all things wingnutty, we can as always turn to State Representative Daryl Metcalfe and the legislation he's sponsoring, HR 357 (as in 357.  Do you get it?  Well, do you, punk?).  From Metcalfe's co-sponsorship memo:

I am currently having legislation drafted that is similar to firearm legislation introduced in Wyoming. My legislation would prohibit the enforcement of any new federal restriction, prohibition or registration requirement for firearms, magazines, and ammunition. My legislation would also require the state to intercede on behalf of Pennsylvania citizens against any federal attempt to register, ban or restrict the purchase or ownership of firearms and firearms accessories which are currently legal products.

And from the bill itself:

General rule.--A Federal law, rule, regulation or order created or taking effect after December 31, 2012, shall be unenforceable within the borders of this Commonwealth if the law, rule, regulation or order attempts to register, restrict or ban the ownership or purchase of a firearm, magazine of a firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition.

Penalty.--An official, agent or employee of the Federal Government, Commonwealth or political subdivision who enforces or attempts to enforce a Federal law under subsection (a) commits a felony of the third degree and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not less than one year or more than seven years, a fine of not more than $15,000, or both.

Nullification, right there.  In the not that deep red State of Pennsylvania.  Too bad the States have no authority to override federal law nor to decide which federal law is constitutional:

In Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 632 (U.S. 1982) it was held that “a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute” and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

Does Daryl Metcalfe not know this?

I guess it's a moot point since nullification is in itself a denial of Constitutional authority (hey, I thought these Tea Party folks looooved the Constitution??).

Ladies and Gentlemen, meet Daryl Metcalfe, Pennsylvania's very own neo-confederate nullificationist!

The Trib's Editorial Board's On The Defensive, I Guess

From today's Tribune-Review op-ed page:

In a Facebook post, state Rep. Brian Sims, D-Philadelphia, accuses those associated with the Commonwealth Foundation, a free-market Harrisburg think tank, of being “racist, homophobic, sexist, classist, ableist, anti-American bigots whose single driving motivation is to secure the wealth of (its) multimillionaire donors at the expense of every single working person and family in the commonwealth.” Sims' words once again prove that ignorance and intemperance are the main ingredients of a “progressive” smear.[Bolding in Original]

If you're looking for an explanation, John Micek over at Pennlive, has one:

It's no secret that Harrisburg's Commonwealth Foundation tilts to the right. The think-tank on State Street has helped lead the charge on such conservative cornerstone issues as Paycheck Protection and the amusingly misnamed "Right to Work," movement.

It's also been in the vanguard of opposition to Gov. Tom Wolf's budget and the tax hike plans embedded within it. And if there's some liberal cause making the rounds, it can be reliably counted upon to oppose it.

All of which apparently didn't sit well with state Rep. Brian Sims, D-Philadelphia, who took to the Facebooks earlier this month to go all Old Testament prophet in the wildnerness on the Koch Bros.-linked think-tank. [Link and Bolding in Original.]

As much as I like Micek, I think he missed the context of the story.  Let's start with the facebook message that the braintrust found so offensive:

Oh Commonwealth Foundation we've talked about this!

See, I already know that you are all racist, homophobic, sexist, classist, ableist, anti-American, bigots whose single driving motivation is to secure the wealth of your multimillionaire donors at the expense of every single working person and family in the Commonwealth. See, I told you I already get it so you don't need to waste money sending me proof...actually go ahead and waste that money!

We're better than you bigots!

And move on to the context.  Here's a follow-up from Sims:

The bigots at the Commonwealth Foundation have just now come across my post about their useless mailing earlier this month and rather than address any of my facts (err accusations) about the work they do, each person who like worked on the flier is posting about how I individually called them names [smile emoticon]

I'm guessing that's about as close to a legitimate defense as they can come up with so its all good on my end!

"Stop hating on our hatred. Stop discrimination against our discrimination. Hold still so we can hurt you and hate you more."

I think you've done enough to hurt working class, military, middle class, and poor families today, Commonwealth Foundation. How about you rest up and attack Americans and liberty tomorrow on a full night sleep.

So the right-tilting Commonwealth Foundation mailed something to state Rep Brian Sims that Sims thought wasteful enough to mock them about it with some rather harsh words.  (I'll leave it to you to agree or disagree)

But who's Brian Sims?  For those who need a reminder, Brian Sims is this guy:

An openly gay lawmaker was silenced by colleagues on the Pennsylvania House floor Thursday when he attempted to speak about the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.

State Rep. Brian Sims (D-Philadelphia) took to the House floor on Thursday to discuss the high court's landmark ruling, which found the federal law barring the government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by states to be unconstitutional. However, as WHYY News and Philly.com report, Sims' remarks were blocked by several state lawmakers using a procedural maneuver.

One of those lawmakers, conservative state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler), told WHYY that he believed Sims' comments would be a violation of "God's law."

"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law," Metcalfe said.

Yea, that Brian Sims.  Anyone who can trigger Daryl Metcalfe into such righteous indignation must be doing something right.

But let's head back to the rather gentle argument skewing the braintrust makes.  First off, Sims wasn't accusing "those  associated" with the Commonwealth Foundation of being bigots, etc. (which could mean anyone who donates to the foundation or simply agrees with its "research", for example).  He was accusing the Foundation itself of being those things.

By widening the Venn diagram and expanding Sims' less-than-gentle mockery, the braintrust unfairly smears Sims.

But that's all a diversion from the bigger problem with what the braintrust wrote.   I'll give you a hint.  It's found among the nouns of this phrase:

...motivation is to secure the wealth of (its) multimillionaire donors at the expense...[Emphasis added.]

Hmm.  Rich donors of the Commonwealth Foundation.  Hmm.

According to the bridgeproject, the Commonwealth Foundation received $7,654,207 in foundational support over the years.  Just under 35% of that (about $2.667 million) came from the Sarah Scaife, Allegheny and Carthage Foundations - all controlled (before his passing) by Trib owner Richard Mellon Scaife.

Sims indirectly called out the Trib's former owner (although he was a billionaire and not merely a millionaire) and the braintrust, in pushing back, just never seemed to get around to saying, "Hey, that's our former boss you're insulting!"

Given all the money he shuttled off to the Commonwealth Foundation, shouldn't they have pointed that out?

Wherever He Is, Rick Santorum's Probably Having A Bad Day

Of course, it's about the ban being declared unconstitutional:

Same-sex couples across Pennsylvania could begin tying the knot on Friday or Saturday under a landmark federal court decision in Harrisburg that had some people celebrating and others crying foul.

An order on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III overturned the state's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, positioning Pennsylvania to become the 19th state in which same-sex couples can marry legally. Jones declared the 1996 act a discriminatory violation of the Constitution that belongs in “the ash heap of history.”

“We now join the 12 federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage,” Jones wrote in a 39-page opinion.

Daryl Metcalfe defined the problem a few paragraphs later:

“We're not going to stand by silently while an activist judge tries to strike down an institution that has been preserved throughout history,” said state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry. He introduced an earlier impeachment resolution against [Attorney General Kathleen] Kane, who refused to defend the marriage law.

Here's the decision if y'inz wanna read it.

And here's why Lil Ricky's probably having a bad day today: He endorsed Jones for the seat on the District court (h/t to slate).  Here's Santorum's statement by way of the way back machine where he said that Jones was:

...highly qualified to assume the important role of Judge and the duty of protecting the Constitution and ensuring the effective operation of our judicial system.

But Rick had more to say about Judge Jones (h/t to the Washington Blade).  Take a look:

Santorum said he was excited about Jones' federal judgeship because Jones "understands our values and traditions."

But did you see the date on the endorsement?  March 1, 2002.  That means that it was during George W. Bush's first administration.  He was also confirmed unanimously by the Senate.  That means that every Republican member of the United States Senate in 2002 voted for the guy.

Oh, and he was also the guy who struck down the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools.

So I'd say, yea, Rick Santorum's have a bad day today.

Poor Rick.

What Planet Does Daryl Metcalfe Live On?

A letter from today's Tribune-Review written by State Representative Metcalfe:

A Democrat Pennsylvania judge has struck down the state voter-identification law in an activist partisan maneuver. The Corbett administration filed an appeal to the judge's ruling, and I believe the law eventually will be found to be constitutional.

Chairing the State Government Committee, I have heard convincing testimony about Pennsylvania's history of election fraud. As recently as 2008 and 2009, ACORN staffers in Allegheny, York and Chester counties have been prosecuted for election law violations. Voter ID will help restore integrity and confidence in our elections.

Last fall, after an online election, I won the unsolicited honor of being inducted into the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO's “Hall of Shame.” That's because of my support for making Pennsylvania a right-to-work state, authoring the voter ID law and defending marriage as between one man and one woman.

On Jan. 27, union members came to the Capitol to protest a proposed law to ban the use of taxpayer resources to collect public-sector union dues. I co-sponsored this legislation because it's not fair to use public money to benefit private political organizations such as the public-sector unions. Former legislators are sitting in prison for using taxpayer resources for campaign purposes, yet our law allows those resources to collect money for unions.

On Jan. 30, about 20 union protesters picketed outside of my Cranberry office. I am sorry I missed their visit because I had not yet returned from the Capitol. I would have enjoyed discussing the protesters' concerns with them, although I would not have been a sympathetic ear.

I will continue my fight to protect taxpayers.

Let's start at the top.  Here's the Voter ID decision Metcalfe so longingly predicts is unconstitutional.  In the next paragraph, he states that he's "heard convincing testimony" about our state's history of election fraud.

Perhaps he should have informed the attorneys defending Pennsylvania's law before the Commonwealth Court because:

[Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard] McGinley also said the state failed to demonstrate the law was necessary to preserve the integrity of elections, as they “wholly failed to show any evidence of in-person voter fraud” either occurring or being in imminent danger of occurring. 

So what did Representative Metcalfe mean by his claims of voter fraud in Allegheny York and Chester counties?  Perhaps he meant this:

For starters, in May 2009, a six-month FBI investigation led to forgery and election fraud charges against seven Pittsburgh area ACORN employees. In October 2008, Philadelphia's deputy city commissioner submitted approximately 8,000 fraudulent ACORN-collected voter registration forms for investigation.

Also in October 2008, another ACORN canvasser was arrested in York County for, according to new reports, submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registrations "on at least 19 applications he randomly picked names out of the phone book and registered them."

Daryl wrote this in 2011, by the way.

You'll note that he's also not actually talking about voter fraud (which McGinley's decision calls "in-person voter fraud" but voter registration fraud.  A completely different thing.

He even said so in 2011:

...Philadelphia's...commissioner submitted approximately 8,000 fraudulent...voter registration forms...

And:

...another ACORN canvasser was arrested in York County for...submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registrations...

And Allegheny County?  You guessed it:

Seven Pittsburgh-area ACORN workers were charged with falsifying voter registration forms, with six accused of doing so to meet the group's alleged quota system before last year's general election.

District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. said he's hoping the workers charged Thursday will help authorities determine whether Allegheny County ACORN officials will be charged with requiring the illegal quotas or otherwise directing that voter registrations be faked. [Emphases added.]

The crime of voter registration fraud is different from in-person voting fraud.  Pennsylvania's Voter ID law was an attempt (an unconstitutional one, as it turns out) to combat in-person voting fraud.  And yet Representative Metcalfe is dishonestly using evidence of registration fraud in an attempt to show that in-person voting fraud exists.

Even though the state stipulated:

• There have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direction personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states
• The parties are not aware of any incidence of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and no not have direct personal knowledge of in person voter fraud elsewhere
• Respondents will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere

So WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT'S GOOD IS DARYL METCALFE TALKING ABOUT?

Given the court's decision that "Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID law does not further this goal" when have to ask that when State Representative Daryl Metcalfe writes:

I will continue my fight to protect taxpayers.

We have to assert that he's got it backwards. It's the voters who have to be protected from him.

Politician or Porn-itician?

Rachel Maddow and Michael Strahan guessed whether photos shown to them by Andy Cohen were porn stars or a politicians last night on Bravo's Watch What Happens Live show. And while they correctly identified a photo of Brian Sims as a politician, Rachel could not have been more wrong on Sims' views. She said of Sims, "He looks like the guy who's the head of the anti gay marriage group."

Whoops! Wrong, Rachel. You owe Brian a big apology!

Sims is a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in the 182nd district and was the first openly gay person elected to that body. He's very much pro same-sex marriage and an activist for LGBTQI rights. In fact, he introduced HB1686, the Pennsylvania Marriage Equality Act earlier this month. Moreover, he gained the ire of Daryl Metcalfe (always a good sign!) and got some national press with this:

In June 2013, after the Defense of Marriage Act had been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Sims tried to make a speech in the Pennsylvania House supporting the decision. Daryl Metcalfe, who was one of several representatives who blocked Sims from speaking, said ”I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God’s law.”

Sims was all over the Pittsburgh region in the last couple of days advocating for the end of discrimination against gays.

He's also appeared on Rachel's show in the past.

More On Daryl Metcalfe (Why Am I Not Surprised?)

From WHYY:

Openly gay Pa. Rep. Brian Sims, D-Philadelphia, was blocked from talking about the Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday on the floor of the Pennsylvania House.

His comments to his colleagues were ended by a procedural maneuver.

In a part of the house session where members can speak on wide-ranging topics, Sims had just begun his remarks when he was shut down.

So an elected official in Pennsylvania, which is one of the United States of America, during a legislative session where members can discuss a wide range of issues of the day rose to speak about US V Windsor and was shut down.

By his own admission, he was going to "going to limit my comments to how important the cases were."

But he wasn't able to.  So what happened?  This:

It takes just one legislator to end the impromptu remarks. Rep. Daryl Metcalfe was one of the House Republicans who objected.

"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law," said Metcalfe, R-Butler.

Two more Democratic legislators got up to speak in support of Sims. Neither was allowed to proceed.

Why is it not surprising that Daryl Metcalfe would deny a gay member of the house an opportunity to speak about the Supreme Court's decision that DOMA was unconstitutional and use "God's law" as a reason to do so?

I mean Daryl is an ALEC legislator who's done some oh so wonderful things limiting freedom in this state.  Things like:

• The "Voter Fraud" Fraud
• The Arizona Style Crazie
• The Protector of Family Values (but only if Domestic Violence is included)

So why should we be surprised that Daryl invokes all-mighty Gawd to protect his ears from the words of the rebellious sodomite?

There's a follow up from WYY:

Sims rose again on the House floor Thursday evening to ask the Legislature to reprimand Metcalfe for his comments. He told colleagues he felt that his character had been questioned.

"It is my understanding of the rules of this body that I could never call another member a bigot, a homophobe or a racist, nor would I, but I do ask that this body recognize that the language used against me as a member does not live up to the standards set by this body," he said.

The House determined that it could not censure Metcalfe for comments made elsewhere.

Oh, well...

On t'other hand:

Rep. Mike Fleck, Pennsylvania's first openly gay lawmaker, said of Rep. Metcalfe's move to silence Rep. Sims: "I, like many of my Republican colleagues, was infuriated. I think we should be able to speak on any issue. If you don't like it, you can get up and leave."

When asked if he thought it was appropriate for Rep. Metcalfe to be censured, Fleck said, "I think Representative Metcalfe would love to be censured. I mean, he would love the national press. I mean, quite frankly, that's how he raises money — by exploiting an issue and saying, 'Oh look they're coming after me. Send me 5 bucks.' So you know, I seriously don't blame Representative Sims for wanting due recourse and all this, but I just don't know what is gained throughout the whole thing."

Fleck, R-Huntingdon, said Metcalfe has "certainly lost a lot of respect by many members," because of the flap over Sims' attempt to speak.

That last part's the most shocking. Even with all the crazie noises mumbling between Metcalfe's ears, he once had the respect of many house members???

What is wrong with those people?

LGBTQ In The News

My friend Sue over at Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents is running:

An occasional series where we pose some questions to local LGBTQ folks (and Allies) to learn more about their personal experiences with LGBTQ culture.

And she was nice enough to think that I'd make a good addition to the series.  I have to say that it's very nice to be included in such an illustrious list of people.  Others political type folks thusly profiled:

• Matt Merriman-Preston
• Natalia Rudniak
• Dan Gilman
• Doug Shields
• Tonya Payne
• Sherry Pasquarello
• Bill Peduto
• Bram Reichbaum
• Jeanne Clark

And that's just the names I recognize!

With the self-serving stuff out of the way, let's move on to this short-ish piece in the P-G:

A bipartisan group of state House and Senate lawmakers introduced measures Tuesday to ban discrimination statewide in employment, housing and public accommodations for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Pennsylvanians.

The P-G blurb doesn't say much about the legislation (bill numbers? sponsors? nuttin') but this piece from the Tribune-Democrat has a bit more info:

Forty percent of Pennsylvania’s state legislators, including two local senators, sponsored anti-discrimination bills introduced in Harrisburg on Tuesday.

Sens. John Wozniak, D-Westmont, and Richard Kasunic, D-Dunbar, co-sponsored Senate Bill 300, introduced by Sens. Pat Browne and Larry Farnese.

None of the area’s seven representatives co-sponsored House Bill 300, as put forth by Reps. Dan Frankel and Chris Ross.

Now, we're getting somewhere.  Although as of this writing - and this is probably due to the fact that these bills were only introduced yesterday - there was nothing at the Pennsylvania Legislature website for SB300 or HB300 for this legislative session (I'll update this blog post if/when they go "live.").

John Micek at Pennlive his more:

In the press conference, Rep. Dan Frankel, lead sponsor of HB 300, said, ”More and more people inside the Capitol – from both parties — agree with the vast majority of people outside the building on this. Being gay or transgender has nothing to do with your ability to do a good job or to be a good neighbor or tenant. This is just commonsense legislation. Many people think it’s the law already, and it should be.”

And at his legislative webpage, Rep. Frankel has this Sponsorship Memorandum where learn that it's a reintroduction of HB300 from the 2011-2012 legislative session

From Senator Pat Brown's legislative webpage, we find this Sponsorship Memorandum, where we learn that his bill is a reintroduction of SB1050 from the 2011-2012 legislative session.

Back to Micek for the inevitable:

In the House, the bill sponsored by Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny, is destined for the State Government Committee.

That matters because the panel is chaired by state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, an outspoken social conservative who once opposed a push by Philadelphia officials to market the city to gay tourists because he didn’t believe tax dollars should be used to “promote immoral behaviors.”

In a phone interview Tuesday, Metcalfe scoffed at Frankel’s bill, charging his House colleague was “out of touch with reality.” Metcalfe said some Republicans on his panel had advised him to bring the bill to a vote just so it could be defeated.

Only if "out of touch with reality" means that when asked this question:

The state legislature is considering several proposals related to gay marriage and civil unions. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendmen t that would allow same sex couples to get legally married?

53% of Pennsylvanians polled in this recent Franklin and Marshall poll answered with either "Strongly favor" (37%) or "Somewhat favor" (16%).  Note to the possibly arithmatically challenged Daryl Metcalfe: 37 + 16 = 53 and 53% is a majority.

Remember, Metcalfe's the guy who declared that there's "significant voter fraud plaguing Pennsylvania's elections" even though there isn't any.

So facing facts probably isn't one of his strong points.

Latest PA Voter ID Law News

1. Good on County Exec Rich Fitzgerald! He's using a loophole in the new Voter ID Law to allow nursing homes and colleges to issue their own free photo ID for voting in Allegheny County -- for any registered voter who wants it, not just residents and students. Plus, the requirements to get these IDs are not as onerous as the ones to get a PennDOT ID. The Kane Regional Center nursing home system and Community College of Allegheny County will be participating in this. Locations and dates to be announced later.

2. PA State Rep. Daryl "I don't Speak Mexican" Metcalfe says only lazy people will be disenfrachised from voting by PA's new Voter ID law -- just like those 47% Romney was talking about. Via Think Progress:

HOST: Are you absolutely convinced…that the methods to implement this law are effective and will in fact make sure no legitimate voter will be disenfranchised?  

METCALFE: I don’t believe any legitimate voter that actually wants to exercise that right and takes on the according responsiblity that goes with that right to secure their photo ID will be disenfranchised. As Mitt Romney said, 47% of the people that are living off the public dole, living off their neighbors’ hard work, and we have a lot of people out there that are too lazy to get up and get out there and get the ID they need. If individuals are too lazy, the state can’t fix that.

3. PA Comwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson will hold a hearing on September 25th on the new Voter ID Law. Testimony will be taken from both sides. In the meantime, the PA branch of the ACLU has asked Simpson for a preliminary injunction to block the new law.

4. The Tea-baggers are revolting (no pun intended). Via PoliticsPA:

The Independence Hall Tea Party PAC, “warned today that it will organize to defeat Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Ron Castille, a Republican, and PA Supreme Court Justice Max Baer, a Democrat, in their respective 2013 retention races, if Voter ID is not implemented in the November, 2012 General Election,” the group wrote in a press release.

Guess What? NO VOTER FRAUD

From the Post-Gazette:

State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law, according to a document signed earlier this month.

The state and the parties challenging the law agreed in the court document that neither side knows of cases of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

But...but I thought there was "significant voter fraud plaguing Pennsylvania's elections."

Does that mean that Representative Metcalfe was lying?

Say it ain't so!

The Trib and Judicial Watch and ALEC: Nefarious Nexus

From today's Trib:

The American Civil Liberties Union did the Obama Justice Department's bidding in challenging Arizona's law cracking down on illegal immigrants. Now, Judicial Watch is fighting to determine whether Justice and the ACLU also are in cahoots on an ACLU lawsuit seeking to keep Pennsylvania's voter ID law from taking effect before November's election.

Here's what Judicial Watch has on this:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that on June 1, 2012, it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain records detailing the agency’s communications with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) regarding Pennsylvania House Bill 934, commonly referred to as Pennsylvania’s Voter ID law (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. Case 1:12-cv-00884)). The ACLU and allied organizations have filed a lawsuit to prevent the law, signed by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett on March 14, 2012, from taking effect before the November elections.

Ah, so we're talking about HB 934.  More on that later.  But let's read further down the page.  A paragraph or so later we find:

Pennsylvania House Bill 934 requires voters to produce a Pennsylvania driver’s license or another government-issued photo ID, such as a U.S. passport, military ID, or county/municipal employee ID. As reported by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, on May 1, 2012, so-called “civil rights” groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit to seek to prevent Pennsylvania’ voter ID law from taking effect before the November elections. The trial is scheduled to begin on July 25, 2012.

How nice of them to link back to Scaife's paper, isn't it? Especially since it's not a Trib article.  If you look, it's actually the AP's work.  But, as I said it's nice for Judicial Watch to give a such a subtle shout-out to Richard Mellon Scaife's newspaper.

Why do I mention that?

Glad you asked.  From the Phoenix New Times:

But [Judicial Watch has] never wanted for cash, in large part because of the deep pockets of crackpot Pennsylvania billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.

And:

Through his Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Scaife helps bankroll a number of far-right and nativist groups, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (which was behind writing SB 1070), NumbersUSA, the Center for Immigration Studies, and Judicial Watch (see "FAIR-y Tales," Terry Greene Sterling, December 2).

According to the progressive Media Matters Action Network, the Scaife family foundations mentioned above have given $8.7 million to Judicial Watch since 1997, making Scaife Judicial Watch's primary benefactor.

See? So how nice of them to give a shout out to their primary benefactor.  Isn't it funny, though, that that little bit of info never seems to make it onto the pages of the Trib?

But let's get back to HB 934, shall we?  We've written about it before.  In case you're just joining us, HB 934 is sponsored by our good friend Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler).  It's also an example of a piece of ALEC legislation.

ALEC?  What's ALEC, Mr. Dayvoe?  Again, for those just joining us, ALEC is the American Legislative Exchange Council.  We've written about them before, too.

And guess, just guess, who had a hand in ALEC's founding.  From the Washington Post in 1999:

Scaife has given ALEC more than $2 million since 1975, keeping the group alive in its early years.

So the Scaife-funded Judicial Watch is defending some legislation that came from the Scaife-supported ALEC while the Scaife-owned paper is both silent on those connections and yet still accuses the DOJ and the ACLU of being in "cohoots".

Another lesson on how the right wing noise machine works.