Mississippi Rep. Becky Currie (R)

Significantly, Currie is a member of the organization State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI), an anti-immigrant group of 65 lawmakers whose members “have promoted conspiracy theories about supposed government concentration camps and a coming one-world government, as well as false claims that President Obama is a foreigner and a Muslim.” SLLI also touts its “working partnership” with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant group designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. FAIR, whose attorneys include Romney immigration advisor Kris Kobach, draft much of the legislation pushed by SLLI members.

Like Alabama’s law, Currie’s bill would require schools to check a newly enrolled student’s citizenship or legal resident status, according to the bill:

“Every public elementary and secondary school in this state…shall determine whether the student enrolling in public school was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States or is the child of an alien not lawfully present in the United States.”

When Alabama schools began enforcing the same policy, students with immigrant parents were terrified. Many stayed home, and more left Alabama schools permanently as their families fled the state. The Justice Department even stepped in to ensure that the law was not stopping students’ right to an education. Students in Mississippi could face the same fear under the proposed law.

HB 488 would also prevent an undocumented immigration from entering “into or attempt to enter into a business transaction with the state or a political subdivision of the state.” This provision is open-ended, “including, but not limited to, applying for or renewing a motor vehicle license plate, applying for or renewing a driver’s license or nondriver identification card, or applying for or renewing a business license.” A similar provision in Alabama was interpreted so broadly that public utility companies refused service to anyone who could not prove they are a legal resident or citizen. Under this interpretation, it became a felony for an undocumented immigrant to simply have water at his home to take a bath.

Alabama should serve as a prime example to Mississippi of the harm that can come from extreme immigration policies designed to do little more than make the lives of undocumented immigrants impossible in that state. But it is unlikely that legislators who agree with Currie will listen.

Rutherford County Sheriff Robert Arnold

Speaking at another Tennessee church in November, Guandolo said local mosques are front organizations for the Muslim Brotherhood. “They do not have a First Amendment right to do anything,” Guandolo said then. And the pastor at World Outreach Church, the Rev. Allen Jackson, urged the Rutherfod County Commission to not allow a mosque to be built in Murfreesboro. “I would submit to you that we have a duty here at home to understand thoroughly the nature, the intent, the funding of any group that is being invited into our community under that general banner (of Islam),” Jackson told the commission in July 2010.

Rutherford Sheriff Robert Arnold defended the training, saying his department only wants to find out more about Islam. “There are not many classes out there for anything when it comes to Muslims … but this training isn’t just about that, it has many other components to it,” he told the Tennessean. “My stance is and my office’s stance is, we are not here to pick sides. I am here to protect the people of this county, and I am never going to waiver from that.” But local Muslims said they weren’t asked to join the training:

Saleh Sbenaty, a member of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, said the sheriff’s office never asked local Muslims to participate in the training. He said the department is supposed to protect the rights of citizens no matter what their faith.

Using a trainer who thinks Muslims have no civil rights doesn’t make sense, he said.

“This training is hate training,” Sbenaty said. “It is not training to keep our whole community safe.”

On Tuesday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national Muslim civil rights group, asked the Tennessee Law Enforcement Training Director Brian Grisham to “investigate the appropriateness” of the week-long training. CAIR points out that the Rutherford Sheriff’s Department “is responsible for investigating an arson and repeated acts of vandalism at the construction site of a planned mosque in Murfreesboro that has faced fierce opposition since it was first proposed.”

Previously, the FBI has come under fire for teaching counterterrorism trainees about Islam using anti-Muslim materials. Spencer Ackerman reports that an internal investigation at the bureau so far has purged hundreds of pages of material about Muslims — some characterizing them as prone to violence or terrorism — from presentations given to agents.

Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R)

This is hardly the only example of this Personhood bill’s chief sponsor, Del. Bob Marshall (R-VA) showing disregard for women who have been sexually assualted. In a brief he submitted earlier this week opposing the Affordable Care Act, Marshall claims that requiring most Americans to carry health insurance or pay slightly more income taxes is just like rape:

As the Government admits, the individual mandate is designed specifically to “internalize” the risks and costs of health care, which it has the temerity to call “classic economic regulation of economic conduct.” In fact, the mandate is classic sumptuary legislation, prohibiting personal spending choices which offend the moral or religious beliefs of Congress. Thus, the Government’s individual mandate is not a regulation of commerce; it is a compelled societal duty. Indeed, the individual mandate is not voluntary commercial intercourse; it is forcible economic rape.

Marshall, of course has a long history of such opposition to modernity. An arch-nullificationist, Marshall once claimed that children with disabilities are God’s punishment to women who had abortions, and his disregard for reproductive choice and the Constitution is rivaled only by his disdain for gay people.

Nevertheless, Marshall’s latest statement is beyond the pale even by his standards. Enacting an economic regulation that is essential to the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with preexisting conditions is absolutely nothing like rape.

Sen. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City, was absent during the vote. But he said later that he opposes the resolution taking effect this year, fearing many will see it as a move to help former state Sen. Dan Liljenquist, R-Bountiful, in his race against incumbent U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “I think people may see it as us trying to help a buddy, and the importance of what happened with the 17th Amendment may be lost,” he said.

Conservatives are also fond of a certain Supreme Court decision that blew up campaign finance laws and opened the door for unlimited — and often undisclosed — donations to super PACs, the campaign organizations that played a marked role in the 2010 midterm elections and have already had a substantial impact on the 2012 Republican primary.

With that in mind, ThinkProgress asked several “Founding Fathers” who attended last weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference what they thought about the rise of super PACs and if it they intended for elections to one day be dominated by small groups of wealthy individuals and corporations that could funnel huge sums of money into the electoral system. Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson all told ThinkProgress that super PACs were never their intention, as did a 19th century veteran of the fight for the Alamo. James Madison, meanwhile, said he anticipated the rise of super PACs, but that the domination of money in politics would “destroy the country.” Watch it:

The objections, led by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and a few conservative organizations, are not over the VAWA as a whole, but over a few new provisions in the reauthorization — specifically, protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.

The Leahy bill enumerates protections for LGBT victims of domestic violence, forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by VAWA grantees.

The VAWA reauthorization also expands the availability of visas for undocumented immigrants who have been victims of domestic violence and may be reluctant to come forward because of the risk of deportation. VAWA has always protected this group of individuals, but the reauthorization would raise the cap on visas for battered women and sexual assault victims from 10,000 to 15,000. The additional visas would come from recaptured visas in previous years that haven’t been utilized.

It is a mystery why Grassley or anyone else could think that battered gay men, lesbians or immigrants (or, for that matter, Native Americans) do not need the full protection of the law. Worse, Grassley’s tactic here does not simply deny protections to these individuals, he is literally holding a bill that protects all battered women hostage in order to score a few anti-gay and anti-immigrant points.

• The New York Times reminds us that the Affordable Care Act’s insurance coverage requirement was a Republican idea, at least until it was embraced by Barack Obama and the GOP’s kneejerk opposition kicked it.
• Baltimore County, Maryland is poised to pass an anti-discrimination bill protecting transgender persons.
• Police on the island of Nevis may have identified a suspect in the robbery of Justice Stephen Breyer.
• A New Jersey court rejects the odd claim that non-citizens lost their ability to change their name because of, um, 9/11.
• Newt Gingrich complains about an “80 year drift to the left” on the courts — something that would come as a huge shock to Chief Justice Roberts and his allies who cannot tell the difference between a corporation and a human being.
• The Minnesota ACLU joins the fight against an anti-gay proposed constitutional amendment in that state.

Unfortunately, Paul is not just restricting this obstructionist tactic to one bill:

Paul is holding up confirmation of one of President Obama’s judicial nominees, Adalberto Jose Jordan, to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The nomination cleared a procedural hurdle with an overwhelming 89-5 vote Monday evening.

But Paul is forcing the Senate to conduct at least some of the remaining 30 hours of required debate on the judicial nominee. Often, that time requirement is waived by senators when an issue gains wide bipartisan support.

Thirty hours does not sound like a lot, until you multiply it across all the other business that the Senate needs to consider. Indeed, if Paul can force 30 hours of delay every time the Senate tries to confirm a single nominee, he can prevent Congress from completing any other business for years:

This is why the Senate’s broken rules cannot coexist with the Tea Party. So long as there are just a handful of senators willing to engage in maximal delay over petty disagreements, each individual member of the Senate cannot enjoy this power to gum up the entire body.

UT-4 Republican candidate Stephen Sandstrom

Sandstrom, a state representative is running in Utah’s newly-created 4th congressional district, made the remarks during an interview with ThinkProgress on Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC.

Despite endorsing Romney for president last July, Sandstrom had few kind words to offer the Massachusetts Republican on the subject of immigration. “I think we’re sticking our heads in the sand if we think that 12 million people are going to leave this country. They’re not,” insisted the Utah GOPer. He went on to say that if Republicans “keep ignoring the Hispanic population,” they will “relegate [them]selves to a minority party.”

SANDSTROM: Once we’ve done those two things, I think we can look at the people already here. I want to look at the people already here because I think we’re sticking our heads in the sand if we think that 12 million people are going to leave this country. They’re not.

KEYES: You think “self-deportation” is not really practical?

SANDSTROM: No, I don’t think self-deportation is practical. [...]

KEYES: Someone like Mitt Romney who is advocating this policy of self-deportation, has members like Kris Kobach on his campaign team. Do you think that’s going to send the wrong message nationally for Republicans?

SANDSTROM: I think the idea of self-deportation can happen in the extent that if you can’t qualify, if you’ve been a criminal element, we want you to leave and self-deport or go, but not for all 12 million. I think that’s where I differ slightly from Romney is that I think that’s not going to happen. I think that we need to look at a way to help the people that have not been criminals in this country or the people that were brought here at a young age to remain, because if we don’t do that, I think that’s one thing as a Republican Party, even as a conservative, we are going to relegate ourselves to a minority party if we keep ignoring the Hispanic population in this country and the Hispanic vote.

In his current position as state representative, Sandstrom has gained notoriety for championing a Utah immigration bill that many have compared to Arizona’s infamous SB 1070 legislation. Though the bill was defeated in the Utah House last week, 37-36, Sandstrom is still pushing to revive the measure.

Sandstrom is certainly no moderate on immigration, yet even he knows that Romney’s policy of “self-deportation” is laughable. Still, at least one Romney endorser is sticking by the presidential candidate’s immigration idea: Kansas Secretary of State and SB 1070 author Kris Kobach.

While it’s unclear if Nickless is calling for literal violence in opposition to the mandate — something that’s difficult to square with Jesus Christ’s teaching that “if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other” — or merely calling for strong resistance, his comment underscores the extreme rhetoric with which some religious conservatives have responded to the Obama Administration’s effort to ensure that all women have access to contraception. Some recently told Sean Hannity they’d be willing to die before complying with the law.

Starting today, gun reform advocates are renewing their push for Starbucks to change its policy. The National Gun Victim’s Action Council (NGAC) announced a Starbucks boycott until the company prevents customers from openly carrying guns in their coffee shops. “Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone’s risk of being a victim of gun violence,” said Elliot Fineman, the council’s CEO. The Fellowship of Reconciliation posted an open letter to Starbucks asking the corporation to change its policy for the sake of public safety:

Today, we ask you to take the next logical step in corporate responsibility and leadership. Join Disney, IKEA, Peets, California Pizza Kitchen, and other chains to ban handguns and other firearms in your stores. It is…a matter of providing an inclusive, supportive, and safe work environment, not only for your partners but also your customers. Now that you have made the corporate decision to sell beer and wine in your stores, the issue of public safety is heightened: guns and alcohol do not mix.

The Firearms Council countered with its own petition, calling on its supporters to thank Starbucks for “recognizing the importance of choice.”

But public support and data are on the side of the gun reform advocates. In 2010, 56 percent of people surveyed said they favored Starbucks and other businesses having strict anti-gun policies. In California, the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office warned that it is not recommended to openly carry a gun because police officers cannot quickly distinguish between an armed person who is a danger to others and “people are simply ‘exercising their rights.’” And a study in 2000 found that there is no evidence that “permissive gun carry laws” would deter criminals. “Until proven otherwise, the best science indicates that more guns will lead to more deaths,” the researchers wrote.

Scott Brown meets with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (Credit: AP)

In his campaign kickoff last month, Brown boasted:

Once again I won’t have the political establishment behind me – not the one on Beacon Hill, and certainly not the one on Capitol Hill. All I will have going for me is my independent record as your United States Senator, and the independent spirit of the Massachusetts voter. I’ll take those advantages any day over the political machine, and with your help in this campaign we will beat the odds again together.

Brown has attempted to solidify his independence by taking credit for an agreement in which he and Warren agreed try toprevent outside groups from spending their money on independent expenditure advertisements. But according to a Huffington Post report, even that non-coordination agreement was a product of Brown campaign coordination with the top lawyer for the National Republican Senatorial Campaign (NRSC), the Washington, DC-based party committee charged with electing Republican candidates to the Senate. The Microsoft Word document files sent to reporters by the Brown campaign indicated that the NRSC counsel authored both the original version of the agreement and the cover letter.

This coordination between candidates and the national party committees is nothing unusual, but is hardly the benchmark of a candidate without the political establishment behind him.

Beyond just the logistical aid, the Brown campaign has received significant financial backing from the Republican establishment. The NRSC has already given Brown $43,100 — the legal maximum.

And it’s not the just party committee opening its wallet to back Brown; his campaign has received $134,500 from the leadership PACs of former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) and 20 of his Senate Republican colleagues. That total includes $10,000 from Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (KY) Bluegrass Committee, $5,000 from Sen. Minority Whip Jon Kyl’s (AZ) Senate Majority Fund, and $10,000 from NRSC Chairman John Cornyn’s (TX) Alamo PAC.

Again–this sort of national party support is typical for a vulnerable member of either party. But, given Brown’s instance that he belongs not to the national GOP but to the Massachusetts voters, that level of “typical” is precisely the problem.

• Justice Stephen Breyer was robbed by a machete-wielding assailant while vacationing in the Caribbean with his wife.
• Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) signed marriage equality into law in that state. Unfortunately, implementation of the law will likely be delayed as anti-gay groups are already planning to force a voter referendum that can halt the law until after the November election.
• Infamous Virginia Del. Robert G. Marshall (R) brings the anti-abortion, anti-contraception Personhood debate to Virginia.
• Meanwhile, some of his colleagues in the state house want to allow more people to be executed.
• Atlanta police arrested a suspect in a brutal hate crime against a gay man.
• Lawyers challenging California’s ban on affirmative action run afoul of a previous Ninth Circuit precedent upholding the law.

Fortunately, the actual parties to this lawsuit were not nearly as unreasonable as Mr. Gingrich, and they eventually agreed to settle the case after mediation. In his order approving the settlement, Biery includes an unusual “personal statement” directed at the many lawmakers who, like Gingrich, have painted him as some kind of enemy of religion:

To the United States Marshal Service and local police who have provided heightened security: Thank you.

To those Christians who have venomously and vomitously cursed the Court family and threatened bodily harm and assassination: In His name, I forgive you.

To those who have prayed for my death: Your prayers will someday be answered, as inevitably trumps probability.

To those in the executive and legislative branches of government who have demagogued this case for their own political goals: You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Biery also includes a clever dig and the many Christian right groups that have attacked him: “Any American can pray, silently or verbally, seven days a week, twenty four hours a day, in private as Jesus taught or in large public events as Mohammed instructed.”

As the video also reminds these Republicans, however, there’s one giant problem with their talking point — the Senate GOP’s unprecedented abuse of the filibuster. Indeed, the number of votes attempting to break Sen. McConnell’s use of this tactic more than doubled the minute he took over as minority leader: