The BIG LIE about CU is REVEALED

I have grown increasingly frustrated with the deliberate ignorance and BIG LIe that is the argument against the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision. It time that I stop trying to educate individually, rather to take a broader approach with this blog. First let me state that I am no ideologue, I am a life long Republican, but rarely vote for a Republican unless they are deemed by ME as being worthy of my vote which has become a rare occurrence to say the least. I am a center-right voter. What was CU all about? A little history. The McCain/Feingold campaign reform law place limitations on the amount of money a person or corporation could spend on an individual candidate or party. When it came to issue ads, individuals were allowed to spend every dime they had. An issue ad is one that CANNOT be coordinated with any candidate or party. This is an ad that as an individual you want to throw your support to a candidate or party as a private person. PAC's, which are corporations were, by law, limited in their ability to create an issue ad as there was a financial limit to what they could spend. What CU was about was a PAC, which is a corporation created an infomercial attacking then candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC cried foul as the CU PAC's broke the law by over spending. CU objected and filed suit claiming an infringement of 1st amendment rights of the people who were part of that PAC, a corporation. The Supreme Court agreed. So what was the effect of CU on elections? Now some claim that it means the Koch's and Adelson's of the country were now free to 'buy' an election. This is just not so. These individuals could have always spent unlimited amounts on issue ads PRIOR to CU. So let us put that one to rest. CU had nothing to do with individual's right to spend unlimited amounts of money on issue ads. So lets look at the effect of CU on the last election...Karl Rove's PAC (a corporation)spent $125M to defeat Mr. Obama and install Mr. Romney as President. How did that work out for them? Adelson spent a like amount as an individual for the same purpose and what was that result? So here you have $250 MILLION spent to 'buy' an election and what happened? Complete and total failure. So how can the CU ruling be a good thing? Here is a hypothetical for you to consider. Prior to CU, if David Koch wanted to create an issue ad supporting an anti-environment candidate and the Sierra Club (a corporation) wanted create their own ad, they were limited financially. They could never match Koch's money legally. AFTER CU the Sierra Club can fight him on equal footing. The playing field is leveled. Now this is but one example. Now for those of you who think in terms of say, Walmart being a corporation, which it is and they decide to support some extremist candidate or cause, it would be corporate suicide. First, the board of directors would have to approve the expenditure. Now, do you really think Walmart is going to put their stock price in jeopardy by doing something so stupid? No, they won't. The stockholders would never stand for it. Sure, they may not be known by the FEC, but the SEC would know they spent that money. Look, corporations have lobbyists who are much more effective for the money spent. Why bother with a crapshoot like an election?

I don't like Romney..but

The revelations of the past few days has shed more light on Mr. Romney. I will admit that I don't like the guy for a variety of reasons.

Tonight's 'interviews' only tend to prove beyond any doubt that this man has his secrets, he will justify everything and is in denial over his past statements regarding Bain. There is no doubt now that he and his campaign staff have decided to play the deflection game because if he exposed the truth, the damage would be worse than not admitting to what he actually did. As long as there is no definitive proof, a smoking gun other than what we already know, he can deny anything and everything and accuse others of speculating.

The question we all must ask ourselves is simply this. Given the secrecy of his past and his unwillingness to produce his tax returns, this should give us pause. Can we trust this man with the fate of 330 million people? Are his other qualifications and other possible intangibles overpowering enough to over ride common sense? I think not. He may claim to know how to fix the economy based upon his business experience, but his whole experience is making a profit. Not job creation, but creating wealth. This is not the President's job, to create wealth. This is all he knows. Government is not a business. Government cannot be run like a business. Imagine 535 members of a board of directors and him trying to accomplish what HE wants. This is not the way the real world works.

The biggest concern we have is simple. Given his propensity for going with the flow means he will succumb to the pressures of the Tea Baggers, just like Mr. Boehner. This is his pattern. To this day, he will flip flop on any subject. Look what happened with the penalty/tax issue of just last week. His whole Presidency will be just like this. He will go with the flow for political expediency.

Is this really the man we want in the White House?

President Romney's first week in office....

The votes are in, the tally set, Mitt Romney is our President, inaugurated a week or so ago. Have to give him credit, he sure hit the ground running. With the House and Senate all locked up in GOP hands, it has been easy to make the changes the right wing has been wanting and fighting for years. 


As a recap, what has happened in the last week. 


The Ryan budget finally became law, austerity and lower taxes on business, a voucher plan for Medicare to mention a few things. 


A 20% increase in the defense budget. 


The biggest changes coming the regulatory environment. EPA, FDA, Department of Education all defunded. New laws rescinding Federal mandates in virtually all areas of regulation, replacing them with recommendations or suggestions to the states. States now will be responsible for their own environment, education, food safety and immigration. 


Virtually all Federal education, social programs, education programs, loan guarantees are abolished, leaving it up to the states to fund their own social programs, if they choose to have them at all. Medicaid and Food Stamps are eliminated on the Federal level. 


The NLRB too was defunded and the question of labor relations to be answered by the states, the national minimum wage being rescinded, also left up to the states. Revenue sharing is being phased out so as not to share the wealth between the states. 


Each state will be losing about 1/3rd of their budgets due to Federal cutbacks, leaving the states to replace that funding from other sources. 


As promised, the entire Affordable Care Act was revoked and the Federal mandate that any hospital MUST treat a person on an emergency basis, insured or not, is also repealed. 


Congress is now considering repealing the American with Disabilities Act, all laws regarding discrimination, workplace safety and equal pay and protections. 


To reduce the liability of Social Security, Social Security Disability program is terminated. 


The military will no longer allow gay's to serve, gay right's are being purged and national laws are under study to remove state responsibilities and authorities on this issue. 


There is also a new cabinet post, the Department of Moral Responsibility. This department will provide moral guidance to all areas of Federal responsibility, to provide litmus tests for appointees.


The first week was not without controversy too. Vice President Jindal had to step down a few days after taking the oath of office. The Congress passed a law making a person a person at the moment of conception. Mr. Jindal's mother was 6 months pregnant when she emigrated to the US which disqualified Mr. Jindal since he was a 'person' created in India. Mr. Jindal was replaced by Paul Ryan as Vice President. 


And this is just the beginning.......

Mitt Romney...Can he turn things around?

The Romney campaign has made a lot of noise, how he is a job creator and has the business experience to turn our economy around. Frankly, I am not convinced he can do this. My reasons are fairly simple. Mr. Romney's focus has always been to make a profit, regardless of the costs or the risks. Risks. This is the key. In Romney's business world he and his com-padre's would buy a corporation and sell off the individual assets and take the write-offs for the ones left over to offset the profits they made off the sale of assets. To some this is called 'Vulture Capitalism'. This is a fairly easy thing to do if you have the money behind you. The system is rigged to take advantage of this sort of operation. This is the basis for Mr. Romney's argument that he is a businessman, a job creator as the primary function of Bain Capital. This could be further from the truth. Bain's focus was to make money, increase wealth without creating one single job. Now, I am not complaining as to what Bain was doing. But to suggest that Romney is somehow qualified to turn the economy around based upon his vast business experience is misrepresenting reality.


Think of the US government as a giant corporation and you were Bain Capital, what would you do to make a buck? First you would identify those parts of the corporation which are the money makers and money losers. Can you imagine trying to sell off parts of the government to reduce overhead and costs, to bankrupt the losers and sell off the money makers? This is the experience Mr. Romney has. How this equates to government escapes me unless he plans on privatizing the parts government he can  and selling them off. 


The bottom line is this. Romney's plan would be to cut all money losing programs, essential or otherwise. If it's losing money, get rid of it. Then he can cut taxes across the board to match what has been cut loose. One thing is certain, people like Romney have no conscience when it comes to real people. Imagine sitting in a meeting at Bain Capital when a decision is made to shift a financial responsibility from one company to another then bankrupt that company, causing those employees to lose their jobs? Do you really think anyone stood up and said, 'what about the people?'. There is an old saying, Business is business, nothing personal.


The question we have to ask is this. Should we risk our future on a person who is risk averse, or do we maintain the status quo? The economy is clearly on  the rebound as it is. If it wasn't, then maybe we should look for change. 

Gay Marriage..my thoughts

Much has been made lately about who has come out in support or against gay marriage. I too have some thoughts on this issue, of course.


Firstly, a little background. I am almost 60 years old. I was raised at a time when the gay issue was not an issue at all. For all I knew at the time, a gay person was about as rare as an albino. It was suggested that a gay person was somehow defective, some still believe this today. As I grew up, living in Yankee states and California my exposure to gays increased as more people came out of the closet. I was stuck with a moral dilemma. I took the stand that while it was not for me, I would not be 'against' the gay lifestyle unless it affected me personally, in other words if I got 'hit' on. My toughest struggle was when my young son came to visit me in California and the couple who lived next door to me were gay. He, coming from the bible belt in Florida. I faced a tough problem. How do I explain to a child the situation when he told me that two men were holding hands and kissing each other? How do I explain it to his mother in Florida what my response would be and not catch flak for it? Needless to say, I punted and told him that they were gay and in love, other than that I don't know anything. In the same apartment complex, there was a mixed race couple who were living together, he never questioned that. Not so many years ago, mixed marriages were frowned upon or outright illegal in some states. Certain minorities could not move in next door to you. Times change. 


It is understood that everything is legal, unless there is a law against it. When we see states which have state laws specifically forbidding such things as gay marriage, one has to question why. The answer, whether we want to admit it is simply a moral issue. Where does morality come into play? Organized religion. The next question of course is obvious, if a state creates a law against gay marriage based upon religious morality, then there is a problem between separation of church and state. I admit, over the years I had not considered the difference between the two, secular and religious. When I excluded the religious argument against gay marriage, the clouds parted and the sun shone bright. If you exclude religious morality, which is not consistent across the religious spectrum, then what is the secular justification for denying gay marriage? There is none. If gay marriage were allowed, what would the ramifications be? From a secular point of view, there is none. Equal rights for all, not special rights.

If a state were to allow for gay marriage, this does not compel a church to perform that ceremony. Marriage is still a state issue, not church issue. No person or church has any right to decide for someone else what their live's should be, nor should they be able influence an outcome that frankly is none of their business. What right does a heterosexual have to decide for someone else? 


The Catholic church is clear on this issue. The church see's homosexuality akin to mental illness and should be treated as such. The church is against gay marriage because in the eyes of the church, the whole reason for marriage is for procreation, which of course is not possible with gay marriage. While the church is tolerant (according to the Catechism) towards gays, the church is adamantly against the lifestyle. One could argue that procreation outside of marriage is against their god's will as well. 


When New York was considering a law allowing for gay marriage, the swing vote came down to a Republican Senator, who voted for it. When asked why he voted for gay marriage, his answer was simple. "I cannot find a legal reason why not." When you think about it, that is the best answer one can give. If you consider that we are a secular nation and not one run by religion, then that answer fits just fine. 


Time does change things.


So to all, on the issue of gay marriage, what secular reason can you find to defend the ban against it. 

Is the Occupy movement doomed?

The Occupy movement is the latest rant to come to not only America, but it seems the world. We have seen this all before, we have just forgotten or fail to recognize it for what it is. The Occupy movement is nothing more than a Neo-Marxist operation. The only difference between then and now is that they have no central leader. Not having a voice in the guise of a charismatic leader is what will doom them. Oh, I know, there are those who say it's not Marxist or Communist or Socialist at all. Maybe this is a hint...

      

 

Of course, there are no similarities at all. Marx called the working class, the Proletariat. In the Soviet Union, they had the Party Congress, where the Proletariat voted on issues, the Occupy has the General Assembly, where the Proletariat 'votes' on issues.

Lets look at some parts of the Soviet Constitution....

The declaration of rights of the labouring and exploited people (approved by the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918), together with the Constitution of the Soviet Republic, approved by the fifth congress, constitutes a single fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.


Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. All the central and local power belongs to these soviets.


Bearing in mind as its fundamental problem the abolition of the exploitation of men by men, the entire abolition of the division of the people into classes, the suppression of exploiters, the establishment of a socialist society, and the victory of socialism in all lands, the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies further resolves: For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that s Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.


The Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies believes that now, during the progress of the decisive battle between the proletariat and its exploiters, the exploiters should not hold a position in any branch of the Soviet Government. The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representitives- the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies.


Expressing its fixed resolve to liberate mankind from the grip of capital and imperialism, which flooded the earth with blood in its present most criminal of all wars, the Third Congress of Soviets fully agrees with the Soviet Government in its policy of abrogating secret treaties, of organizing on a wide scale the fraternization of the workers and peasants of the belligerent armies, and of making all efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.


The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize.


The fundamental problem of the constitution of the Russian Socialist federated Soviet Republic involves, in view of the present transition period, the establishment of a dictatorship of the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian soviet authority, for the purpose of abolishing the exploitation of men by men and introduction of socialism, in which their will be neither a division into classes nor a state of autocracy.


 It is clear that the Soviets took the throw the baby out with the bath water approach to change. One thing is clear from both the Marxist and Occupy movement is the concept of 'exploitation of man by man'. This is the basis for Marxism and the Occupy movement, the system we have today is so flawed that only drastic change will do. 


The same thing happened in Cuba, the lack of a middle class, the gulf between rich and poor so wide. 


We should be wary of the Occupy movement, we should also be on the look out for an emerging leader who will bring all the different assemblies together to form a Central Committee. Only then will their power be consolidated and we should have plenty to worry about. 

After Iowa

The Iowa caucus finished tonight with 3 leaders. Of the three, only one generally appreciates the responsibility of be President of all of us. The other two are extremist ideologues who have a very narrow moral view and agenda not shared by mainstream America. One must remember, this is a secular nation, with laws created by Congress. It is not the place of a President to wage a religious war upon this nation. It is common knowledge that the term 'family values' is a code phrase for the extremist views of right wing Christians, who wish to foist their values and morality upon the rest of us, to deny us our rights as Americans to choose our own values.

If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.

It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.

What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?

Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?

So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.

As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.

The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.

I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?

Concentration Camps being built in the US as we speak.

For the last few weeks we have been told that the Defense Authorization Bill includes a section which allows for the detention of American citizens, without charge, due process and habeas corpus. I have been frustrated to no end because I have actually read the bill and the section in question and by any rational standard, there is no such language, in simple fact, does just the opposite. For simplicity sake, I will provide here the actual text of the relevant sections AND the anchor law in effect by which sets the standard for ANY detention.


Now as you can see Sections 1031 and 1032 are inextricably tied to public law 107-40, which is the authorization for carrying out military operations OVERSEAS, with specific authorization against operations against Al Qaida. There is an important distinction here as the authority is given for operations overseas and under the cover of the LAW of war. This does NOT have anything to do with domestic operations, since there are no domestic operations authorized as that would be a violation of posse comitatus.

The ONLY people who can be detained are covered in 1031(b) 1,2. This is a very narrow focus and only applies to those detained during operations under PL 107-40.


As for US citizens, Section 1032(b) 1,2 is quite clear. US citizens CANNOT be detained by the military under this bill. Section 1032 (a) specifically outlines under what conditions anyone may be detained at all. They must be have been captured in the course of hostilities against the US.

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, 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 such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

 Here is public law 107-40 which serves as the anchor for this section.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS

---

JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Whiners and complainers, the American pastime.

Friends, I have just about had it with the whining and complaining going on in America today.

I have no problem with the public expressing outrage over the problems we face as a nation, what I do have a problem with is where the outrage is directed. Everyone is responsible in this regard. The one thing thing that has been ignored is who is actually responsible and why the complaints are misdirected. The bottom line is this, if you are going to whine and complain, then focus on who is really responsible and do something about it. As I will point out, we can do something about it because there is but one cause and we do have the ability to rectify the situation on our own. The question is, can we walk the walk? Personally, I don't think the American people have the courage to resolve these issues.

I will give several examples of what I am talking about here. I will also point out the root causes and then what we can do about it.

There are those who will blame our President for raising taxes. The truth is, no President has the power to raise taxes. In fact, the President cannot submit a budget directly to the House, only members can do that. No Presidential budget has ever been passed by Congress in it's original submitted form. Congress alone is responsible for the budget. For example, the FY 2012 budget was to be finalized by LAW by the last day of September, yet we have no budget, just continuing resolutions. Who is responsible? Congress.

There are those who blame the banks and Wall Street for our financial difficulties. Again, even according to our President, on the surface it appears they broke no laws. There are those who want the banks prosecuted, but if they broke no law, then this won't happen. Why then did we get where we are? Congress deregulated the banks and allowed them to enter into the field of investments. There were not enough safeguards in the law to prevent the financial institutions from doing what they did. Congress, in their shortsightedness chose to open Pandora's Box and look what happened. Should we blame the banks for taking advantage of an opportunity to make a lot of money, courtesy of the US Congress? As a condition of any bailout, Congress should have instituted a financial transaction tax to pay back the American tax payer and to slow down the derivatives market.

Some people blame the banks when some instituted a 4 or 5 dollar fee for using a Visa other debit card (not credit card). Now a bank has every right to recover the costs involved with these transactions. Transactions are handled through a third party clearinghouse. Prior to the banking reform law just passed by Congress, these costs were covered in fees charged the merchants. By law those fees were reduced. Two things happened, one the merchants did not lower their prices to reflect the reduction, but it does pad their bottom line. Secondly, since the fees were reduced the banks had to find a way to cover those costs, hence the monthly fee. Is it right to be able to use a banking service without actually having to pay for it? Of course not. Believe it or not there are some people who actually believe that a bank makes money off our deposits. It may be true that if you have a CD they might, but not off a checking account where the customer lives from paycheck to paycheck. Some say they should not have to pay to use their own money. The thing is, it's not our money. If you make a purchase at WalMart, you are actually borrowing money from WalMart and WalMart then is paid through a third party from your bank.

Keystone XL pipeline has received a lot of attention lately. What most people don't know is that it's not the pipeline the protestors are against in DC. What they object to is the tar sands oil project in the Canadian Province of Alberta. They see the mining there as an environmental disaster. The problem is this, this is a CANADIAN issue and the President has no authority to shut down an oil mining project in the COUNTRY of Canada. Here are a couple of facts to consider. There are 7 billion people on this planet, there are a little over 300 million people in this country and we use 25% of the worlds oil. We need oil, regardless of where it comes from. We are oil gluttons, simple fact. We have less that 2% of the provable reserves on the planet, in fact if we stopped importing oil from all sources outside the US, we would have a 3 years supply, that's it, under current consumption rates. Canada (Alberta) provides us with 20% of our imported oil. Now, here is something you may not know. There is already a pipeline, Keystone 1 pumping oil from Alberta to St. Louis. This is a second pipeline, Case 2. Alberta's oil production is limited by pipeline capacity, just as the shale oil project, Bakken here in the US is. In the end, it will be the President's decision whether to approve the pipeline or not. Since this is a matter of national security, he will certainly sign it. But what if he did not sign it? What would the ramifications be? Well, for one, it won't stop the mining, which is what the tree huggers want. You see, Alberta also has Case 3, a pipeline to British Columbia to service China and the Pacific Rim in the works. So the Chinese would be getting the oil that was supposed to come here. The new refinery being built in Port Arthur, TX would have to be modified to accommodate a different type of oil, if possible. If we ever needed oil from a friendly source because we got cut off in the future, well, no pipeline, no oil. The point here is, protesting at the White House will have no effect one way or the other on the mining of the tar sands in Canada. It is a wasted effort. The complainers should go to Edmonton to voice their concerns. Given the fact that 1 in 14 people in Alberta are tied to the oil industry and that expected oil royalties from the mining is expected to reach a total of $335 Billion (CDN) by 2035, I would not expect a warm, polite Canadian welcome.

Citizen's United has caused quite a stir, but I doubt if many people know what the ruling really means other than the tag line the 'corporations are people too'. First off, corporations are taxed and regulated without representation, corporations cannot vote. The CU ruling does NOT affect direct contributions to a candidate or party by a corporation or union. The way the law was written, an individual could spend as much money for or against a person, party, platform or issue whereas a corporation could not. This means that George Soros or the Koch brothers could spend as much as they wanted, but not as a corporation. All the CU ruling said is that a corporation cannot be treated differently than a person. If a person can spend as much as they wanted on their own campaign for or against an issue, person or party, so too can a corporation or union. Now, if you limit corporation/union spending, then the only source of political campaign ads will come from a candidate or party. So say an incumbent in a safe district would have a distinct advantage over a rival without CU. Congress created this law and is responsible, not the Supreme Court.

The EPA and over regulation is another issue. When asked, what regulations are hurting business, you either get no answer or you get something like, Mercury emissions or Greenhouse Gases. The truth? EPA has no choice but to create and enforce these rules because they are under orders from the Supreme Court to do so. The mercury emissions law was created by Congress in 1990 and the regulations will be finalized this December of 2011. The greenhouse gases issue was ruled on by the Supreme Court in 2007 and the new rules went into effect in January 2011. What are the rules which kill business? 1) Only new builds will be affected by the rules. 2) Only major refits will be affected by the new rules 3) Small businesses are exempt from the new rules. Each state is required to issue a permit due to the different environmental conditions of each state, there is no blanket permit for all. Existing plants are not affected by the new rules. Now, where did the authority for EPA to regulate come from? The US Congress, that is where. The Congress creates laws which EPA must enforce.

Taxing the wealthy and business is a clear responsibility of Congress. The wealthy do not make tax law, Congress does. Business does not make tax law, Congress does. Don't blame the wealthy for paying the taxes they are lawfully mandated to pay. If it's not enough, blame Congress.

Why blame WalMart for buying from China if that is all we choose to buy from? WalMart sells products made from all over the world, but we will only buy at the cheapest price. So who is at fault? Is it WalMart for selling the product or US who wants cheap prices? No one wants to pay 'list' anymore. If this were true, people would not wait until Black Friday to get the best deals for Christmas. Why do smart people wait until the end of the month to buy a car knowing that dealerships push for those end of the month sales. Why bother have sales at all? It's because we want to get the best deal we can. We made WalMart who they are today. All WalMart is guilty of is providing us with exactly what we asked for, cheap.

Now for the big one, the biggest problem and the ONLY one we can fix. Congress.

If anyone watched Dylan Ratigan today on MSNBC and listened to Mike Williams who was running for Congress in Connecticut, who quit the race over money, you can get an idea how screwed up our political system really is. Does anyone remember when Hillary moved to NY to run for Senate? She could have gone anywhere and run, why? Money. She would raise millions for the party no matter where she landed. She was called a carpetbagger, which she was. Dennis Kucinich, it was speculated he would move to another state because his seat in Ohio would be lost due to apportionment after the census. It's all about the money. Who can raise the most, who has 'connections' to the party and lobbyists. In rare cases a new candidate can break through, but usually because there is no incumbent and their opponent does something really stupid. On the other hand, does anyone remember Carnahan in Missouri who was elected AFTER he had already died? What does that say about the Missouri electorate? What does that say about the electorate at large? What makes an incumbent's seat so safe that well over 90% get re-elected even when it is clear the Congress is absolutely responsible for the fix we are in? Why do we keep voting for the same incompetents? Congress has an 8% approval rating, yet nearly 100% of the incumbents will be re-elected. Doesn't this one question bother anyone? What is it they say about insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? Yet this is what we do. We make it so easy for the political parties. We are predictable and they prey on that. Because we let them. Who decides who runs for Congress? The party for one. If there is an incumbent you can forget any party help UNLESS you can bring in more MONEY. If there is no incumbent, the party chooses whomever can bring in more MONEY. If you are a Democrat wanting to run against a Republican in a 'safe' Republican district, you can forget any help from the party at all, it will be all on your dime.

If you have the chance to watch the movie, 'The Distinguished Gentleman', with Eddie Murphy, you can get an idea of how the process works.

So what is the answer? Campaign finance reform for one, but it will never happen, after all, the current system virtually guarantees re-election, even at the avg. cost of $1.2M per seat and where does the money come from?

The second solution is a lot simpler, but it will take a real change in voter activities.

People vote. People should vote. People should have a choice. The problem is the institutionalized corruption of the political system. There is only one way to put the brakes on. Toss the 435. What would be the ramifications if every single member of Congress was tossed out on their ear? For one, the House seniority would be in a shambles, the pecking order would no longer exist. Money would be less of an issue since the lobbyists would not know who they can approach to bribe. We would have a Congress of idealists not ideologues. The power base would be destroyed overnight. Replacing every member would mean fresh ideas, smarter people, connected to the people and not party. Maybe then we may get campaign finance reform and possibly term limits. We would have people who would put country first rather than party or special interests.

The truth is, Congress is the root cause for where we are today. The solution is to toss them all. So instead of blaming Wall Street and the banks and the wealthy or the Chinese, go after the people who truly are responsible. We cannot bring down Wall Street, but we can bring down the political system. So why not go after what we really can change?

Thank you to the Ron Paul supporter....

A few days ago I was voicing my displeasure on Ron Paul's Facebook page regarding his apparent disregard for his constituents. Mr. Paul has been everywhere but here in the Texas 14th District. No town hall meetings, no meet and greets..nothing. Of course I was hammered with all sorts of Libertarian nonsense, how I was being selfish. Selfish? He is my Congressman, how are my complaints about him not doing the job he was elected to do being selfish I asked myself.

Mr. Paul is running for President, while not actually running for President. He is on a book tour too. I was wondering how he can afford to fly all over the country to the early voting states when we have seen some Congressmen sleeping in their offices because they cannot afford to get their own places in DC. After some checking, I found that Mr. Paul has a $1.8M slush fund from his previous run for President.

To be honest, Mr. Paul is considered and joke in the Republican party. His bills are laughed out of committee. I ask this question, how can a laughing stock actually, responsibly represent me and my fellow Texans? The answer was simple and one I had not considered, yet it there it was.

One of the rabid Ron Paul supporters made a statement, which opened to door to why. The supporter pointed out, accurately I think, that Mr. Paul is considered a safe bet. In other words, his seat is safe. He does not actually have to run for Congress as he will always be elected. According to the supporter, this 'proves' that he is doing a great job representing his constituents, if not how could he be re-elected. This mindset should be of concern to all of us.

It is true there are many seats in Congress which are considered 'safe'. When considering this fact, then we really have no one to blame but ourselves for a dysfunctional government. Now the simple answer would be term limits. Do we really think that Congress would actually vote to limit their terms? I think not. Term limits can come only if we the electorate actually vote the bums out. The system is corrupted by career politicians who will protect their power base at all costs.

I think the time has come when we take a long, hard look at the people we elect. 'Safe' seats such as Ron Paul's should be up for grabs every two years. In his case, he has shirked his responsibility to those who elected him and he is taking advantage of his 'safe' seat.

Why is it that a state will always vote a certain way, a district always votes a certain way? What does that say about us as individuals, of our ability to make up our own minds?

Change will NEVER come until we sit down and say to ourselves, the status quo must go. Change is in the hands of the electorate, not big business or PAC's or lobbyists as they DON'T VOTE, we DO! We can blame big money, but the reality is that WE are the ones who actually have the power. We can no longer be timid, we have to take back control of our government. If it takes one Congressman at a time, then so be it.

Why do we take cheap shots at our Presidents?

I was sitting here, watching posts by certain friends of Facebook and there were a couple of comics taking cheap shots at President Obama. For some reason, I started thinking, why do we do this?

It seems that the President, regardless of who they may be seems to be a lightning rod for those who for some reason get a degree of self satisfaction in doing so. It does not explain why?

If we were a dictatorship and a President ruled by decree in all matters of state, then yes I could see the rationale behind it. We don't have a dictatorship. Laws are created and passed by the Legislative branch and if the President agrees, he signs them into law. Yet, as in the case of Americare, it's called by some, Obamacare as if he alone is responsible for the law, which he is not.

Why do we not take out our frustrations and anger with those truly responsible, the individual Congressmen and Senators? They alone create the laws, tax us and try to deprive us of our perceived rights.

Some say President Obama wants to take away our guns. Now anyone with half a brain cannot possibly believe that, but does not stop some from saying so. The President has NO power to do such a thing. The Supreme Court has ruled on this subject so it's a moot point. In fact the President has gone on the record with his personal beliefs and they do not conflict with the constitution, but even if they did, he still has the right as we all do to voice a personal opinion.

I wonder what things would be like if we held those actually responsible accountable for their actions and votes.

Your congressman is supposed to represent a certain number of people, the President must consider 300 million. May I suggest we all start at the bottom and go after those who are truly responsible.

Who is responsible for the Massacre in Tucson?

Well, it appears we know who is NOT responsible in any way.

"This is a very difficult time for us. We ask the media to respect our privacy. There are no words that can possibly express how we feel. We wish that there were, so we could make you feel better. We don't understand why this happened. It may not make any difference, but we wish that we could change the heinous events of Saturday. We care very deeply about the victims and their families. We are so very sorry for their loss. Thank you. The Loughner family."

Amazingly, these people appear to be in denial over their son's activities prior to his assassination activities.

He lived at home for deity's sake!! How could they NOT KNOW something was very wrong with him? The college knew. The Army knew. His friends knew. His family didn't?

I guess no one is responsible after all.

Second Amendment Solution?

I wish to offer my personal condolences to those who were shot or killed today and their families and friends at the Tucson Massacre.

I felt, while it is fresh in our minds and hearts, I would say a few words.

Throughout the previous political campaign, there were references, veiled and direct to what was coined, the 'Second Amendment Solution'. There were political ads which showed the use of firearms, suggesting that if you own a gun you were somehow superior to another candidate, more in tune with how the voters feel. I ask you, right now, how do you feel the a Congressman, a Federal Judge, a 9 year old child and at least 7 others, killing at least 5 were gunned down by an obviously crazed individual. This is what a Second Amendment Solution looks and feels like. It's not funny, or a cute tag line someone can use.

Five people are dead in Tucson because someone exercised their own Second Amendment Solution. How do you feel? I am sick and disgusted that this sort of thing happened in our country. Anyone, politicians and supporters included who supported the notion of a Second Amendment Solution, even in joking may very well have blood on their hands. The psycho's out there, who have 'issues' with our government and politicians may very well be given the idea from all the press that came out over these statements. Crazies can be influenced by these statements. Because they are crazy, they show no remorse or conscience because as a crazy, they believe in the righteousness of their cause. When you have a politician speaking in those terms it may validate the cause or give impetus to the act.

Rational people, who may have a similar complaint may indeed agree, but actually stop short of doing anything such as this because, well in the end they know it's wrong. Of course it won't stop them from talking trash. Now I wonder, how do they feel about saying such things? Are they human enough to admit that maybe saying such things is a bit too extreme?

I think, at the very least, those who subscribed to this nonsense admit, well this is not a solution at all. Certainly not an American solution.

Don't forget, there are more crazies where this guy came from.

I hope as a nation, we can learn from this. Words can hurt or cause others to hurt. This is not a video game American, this is real people, blood and yes, tears.

The Second Amendment Solution is no answer to ANYTHING when it comes to a massacre of innocents and people doing their jobs and going about their lives.

Addendum 01/09/11

The last paragraph from the statement from Kelly's campaign says it all. No remorse, no remote possibility of responsibility;

During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event.

"I don't see the connection," between the fundraisers featuring weapons and Saturday's shooting, said John Ellinwood, Kelly's spokesman. "I don't know this person, we cannot find any records that he was associated with the campaign in any way. I just don't see the connection."

They don't get it. Just because you 'don't see the connection', does not mean your vitriolic rhetoric did not empower someone to take matters into their own hands. Why not admit that maybe, in hindsight the judgement to use weapons in a campaign to help 'oust' a candidate might not have been the smartest thing to do? The weaponizing of a campaign fundraiser, especially with Second Amendment Solutions being thrown about might, just might send the wrong message to the less educated and clearly insane.

Job killing Health Care Law?

I really love this one. Republicans are using a label to 'sell' their justification for repealing the health care law, passed by BOTH Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States of America. Job Killing is actually in the title of this bill. I am curious, what jobs are being killed? If you take a look at your local newspaper, you will see in INCREASE in job opportunities for the health care field. Why is that I wonder. Is it because the new law requires insurors (not the government) to provide wellness benefits at no extra charge. This means there will be a great need for these types of practicioners. Another benefit for compelling people to pay their own way, by purchasing their own insurance instead of taking advantage of emergency rooms is that they will now be able to see a doctor before a more serious problem pops up. Does that mean we will need more doctors or NP's? You bet. 40+million more insured will also require insurance companies to hire more people as well. A simple by product will also be we will be a healthier nation, increasing productivity in the workplace.

Now, the question I have is, what jobs are being killed? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest jobs being lost. In fact, the teeth of the new law doesn't take effect for another couple of years. The CBO, which BOTH parties have agreed to use as an arbiter in such issues states that over the next 20 years will save over a trillion dollars. So, the deficit is reduced as a side benefit. Where do these savings come from? Well, as it stands now, anyone who goes to the Emergency Room MUST be treated whether they have insurance or not. Why, because the Federal government mandates that if the hospital accepts Federal money, they cannot turn you away. Now, if virtually everyone is insured, the Federal government, insurance companies and states don't have to foot the bill. Who pays now? WE DO, in higher insurance costs, hospital costs and taxes.

Personally, I would like to see Medicare for all, such as with the Medicare Advantage plans. These plans are run as a public/private sector operation. The system is already in place. Everyone pays a premium, based mostly on where they live, but there is a base rate everyone is charged and you have the option to add or deduct benefits. Certainly this is less confusing. The best part is that it comes through payroll deduction and the costs are balanced over the entire nation rather than by state. This what is called the 'public option'.

Putting on my Right-Leaning Independent hat

Those of you who follow my blog probably think of me as a flaming liberal, which could not necessarily further from the truth. You see, I am an issues person, not an ideologue. This means I can can pick and choose, whatever he subject or issue might be my own personal opinion. I tend to stay on subject with any particular issue of the moment and rant on that.

I would like to believe that all of us are at least capable of thinking for ourselves, taking sides on an issue based in part upon our own socio-economic status, our life experiences as human beings. My perspective is based just on that. I would like to think that many people do the same. There are however Lemmings amongst us. Lemmings as you recall are those who blindly follow without thinking or considering the consequences. They just follow, no matter what. You cannot rationalize with a Lemming, you cannot have a reasonable conversation with a Lemming. I have met many such people in my life.

My first experience was with the military. There are just some people who don't get it. They are so used to being told what to think and do, that when they leave, they are embedded with certain 'beliefs', usually very right leaning. Devout religious folks also fall into this category, though they can be much worse because the basis for their beliefs comes from billions of permutations or interpretations of the printed basis for that religion. Whether you are Christian, Muslim or Jew, there are different interpretations for EVERYTHING. Ideologically pure politicians also fall into this category as well as those followers who want to just 'get along'. There are many groups of people who all fall into the Lemming category, though smaller and regionalised. Examples would be right to lifer's, Tenthers, Racists, etc. Each has their own agenda and beliefs and cannot be reasoned with, even with concrete evidence to the contrary. That is a Lemming.

Part of my problem is that if I take a stand on a certain subject, I am branded something other than what I truly am. I think we all have run into this. We don't listen enough. We tend to judge one another based upon a narrow view, which is unfair. I can disagree with a person on a particular subject, but because I am judged a certain way, the other issues we might agree upon get lost because we can never get past that one issue. I was able to get through to one person the other day. I was labeled an Libtard, which is an offensive term by this person, so I asked him, what makes he say that. Out of respect for the office, I showed respect for our President and to him that made me a Libtard. Once we got off that particular subject, he found we had common ground on other areas and could actually have a conversation without labels. Had I not approached him, this would have never happened. Now, he may still think of me as a Libtard personally, but he has stopped calling me that. For that I am grateful.

So what prompted this rant tonight?

I was watching with some interest yesterday the peaceful transition of power in the House. I paid attention to everything. Now, I don't know what the next two years are going to bring. I am hopeful. One of the cable news shows ( I won't say which since it will be used to label me) interviewed two of the new incoming Congressmen, one Democrat, the other a Tea Bag Republican. The Democrat bothered me because he did not seem, at least to me to be 'qualified'. Call it demeanor, use of the english language or his lack of grasp of the issues. He dressed up well, but that was about it. I would not have voted for the guy. The Republican bothered me in another way. When asked about what HE expected to accomplish the next two years, his answer raised all kinds of red flags. He said that the 'party leadership' has a plan for the future and he was going to support whatever they felt was right and proper. Lemming? Now I don't think I am politically naive. I know that to get what you want for your constituents you have to 'play ball'. That is the way things are. On the other hand, if you stand your ground and force the powers that be to come to you and earn your vote, we may have a better system. I have no doubt our system is crippled, not necessarily broken.

May I suggest to all the Lemmings out there, turn on, not tune out.

Obama caves !!!

For three years now I have been an unquestioned supporter of Mr. Obama, until today.

I am not the smartest guy. I am not a politician or economist or a lawyer. I am not rich. I am disabled and a Vietnam Vet. I never made more than $32,000 a year in my life. I am just a regular person. No one special. I am a lifelong registered Republican.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest persons make no fiscal sense. This was personal income, not corporate taxes. We as a nation cannot afford these tax cuts and they have NO bearing on job creation since they are PERSONAL income tax cuts.

The President caved in to the Republicans who held the unemployed hostage. This was just plain wrong.

I can only hope and pray that Congress does not go along with this disaster. Maybe Mr. Obama will grow a backbone, recognize this is wrong and veto the bill.

Mr. Obama, please..stand up for the 98% of us who have already gone on record that this is just plain wrong and unfair.