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. 

Propaganda and Hate, are you are you as sick of it as much as I am?

For the last year I have been compelled to do battle with those extremists on the right as well as the left. Dr. Goebbels would be more than proud with the multiple propaganda machines in play, Hitler himself coined the phrase, "when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." ".

There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's. 


As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.

On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven. 


For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe. 


Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.

Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact. 


Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!

How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?


Now for some political crap. 


Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%. 


Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill. 


Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.


Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists. 


Repeal Obamacare.


No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills. 


Same sex marriage. 


Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?

Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.


False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion. 


I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe. 

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?

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.

Election Day 2010, A Silver Lining?

The 2004 Presidential election baffled not only me but the rest of the world as well, the only people who weren't were Americans. How can you explain 68 million people re-electing a man who by every standard should have been denied a second term because of his invasion of Iraq after manipulating the American people into believing this was a just war. Remember, Congress did not declare war, the President used the War Powers Act to invade Iraq.

Watching the Rachel Maddow show last week from Alaska vindicated my opinion that we really are a nation of fools and idiots, at least those Americans who are pushing the Tea Bag agenda. There were several people holding up Joe Miller signs, asking people to get out to vote in Anchorage. Joe Miller is the Republican nominee for Senate from Alaska. Mr. Miller is also a Tea Bagger. Mr. Miller has admitted that throughout his career as an attorney, specifically the Borough of Fairbanks, he used borough computers for personal use and tried to cover his tracks. These are minor issues, but it should go to the character of this man. Apparently not in Alaska. Two of the people holding signs were asked a simple question, "Why are you supporting Joe Miller?". The one response totally floored me. The respondent said he was against Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the US. He said that Mr. Holder and the Obama Administration wanted to take away their guns. When pressed, he went on to add that through out his political career Mr. Holder has voted for gun controls. When the respondent was told that Mr. Holder has never held political office, the respondent finally admitted he knew nothing about Mr. Holder and the issue of taking away gun rights. Now, not only did the man not have ANY facts correct, he also failed to appreciate the fact that a vote for or against Mr. Miller would have no impact on his second amendment rights. What could any politician do with regards to an issue such as this? The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the most LIBERAL interpretation of the right to bear arms, the point is moot. Let me put it another way, the right to carry a loaded weapon into your local bar is NOT a Federal issue, it is a state or local issue, states decide if it is appropriate, not the Federal government. So, lets go back to the question for this placard bearer, the relevance of the question alone is non-existent. The problem is, this man actually believes this nonsense and by his own admission did no research on the subject, he just accepted a lie as fact.

Joe Miller was asked by Rachel what his stand on abortion was. Miller was clearly uneasy with the question. His answer essentially was if there was a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, he would support it. Of course 75% of the states would also have to agree. Again, abortion is NOT a national issue, it's a state's right to regulate and allow or disallow abortions. The Federal issue is if available to a woman, she can, depending on the state she lives in, be allowed to make that choice. If abortion is illegal in your state, Roe v. Wade does not apply. Asking a national candidate that kind of question is also irrelevant. If I were running for national office, my answer would be similar to the President's. Personally I am against abortion, but the right to choose is the law of the land. No man can make that decision for a woman. Only women have that special right, so my opinion carries no weight. Oh yes, the lie that Mr. Obama is for abortion is just that, a lie. Mr. Obama, through his Attorney General MUST comply with the law of the land, regardless of their personal opinion. Mr. Obama does not support abortion. Keep in mind, the right to choose is not the same as abortion being legal or illegal. Tea Baggers and their Republican cohorts holler about smaller government and keeping Federal government out of our personal lives, yet in this case they want MORE intrusion into our lives.

Intrusion into our personal lives is one of the battle cries of the Tea Bag/Republican party by the Federal government. Funny, you don't hear about the individual states infringing on our daily lies, yet that intrusion is more invasive. What kind of Federal intrusions into our daily lives, the rules and laws which are in place today that we really take issue with? Can you name one negative intrusion? I cannot. I can cite a few new rules/laws just in the past 2 years which will make our lives better. How about regulating the banking industry, to stop them from jacking up your credit card rates without proper notifications? What about compelling the banks to maintain a higher cash level in reserve to cover potential losses? What about a Consumer Protection Agency? What about preventing insurance companies from denying medical coverage because of a pre-existing condition or lifetime caps on benefits? Now, these are but tiny snippets of what has been accomplished in 2 years. You must ask the question, why do we need these things? We need them because when left to their own devices, business and industry will do whatever they can to cut corners and make a profit at all costs, in any way their legally can. Why do we have EPA? Because companies were dumping toxic wastes in rivers and streams and lakes, polluting the air we breathe with thousands of belching smokestacks because there were either no rules or no enforcement possible. Over time, US companies decided to build plants offshore to get around EPA and US laws. The results at times have been devastating, Bhopal, India comes to mind, Union Carbide owned the plant and in 1984 a gas leak developed killing 2300-15,000 people.

My Point, "It emerged in 1998, during civil action suits in India, that, unlike Union Carbide plants in the US, its Indian subsidiary plants were not prepared for problems. No action plans had been established to cope with incidents of this magnitude. This included not informing local authorities of the quantities or dangers of chemicals used and manufactured at Bhopal."

Today, the new country we run to is China. Again, few regulations and an opportunity to maximize profits at the expense of the environment and people. Do I really have to remind you of the lead based paints or cadmium in jewelry coming from China? What would happen if we did not have the Consumer Product Safety folks?

The Tea Baggers want to do away with all of this. They believe we are all responsible people and don't need to be regulated or controlled. I mean, no one runs stops signs or speeds or cheats on their taxes, right? We can be trusted to ALWAYS do the right thing.

Lets go to another Tea Bag/Republican rant. Deficit spending and fiscal responsibility. Privatizing Social Security is one subject. In Colorado, the Tea Bagger is ranting on the Democrat nominee in an ad claiming that when faced with budget shortfalls, he invested money in 'risky wall street ventures'. Generally speaking, states must balance their budgets one way or another. Usually this includes issuing bonds, which lately have been flat. I don't know what the result of these risky wall street ventures are. What I do know is it seems hypocritical for a Tea Bagger/Republican to lash out at a Democrat for doing EXACTLY what the Tea Bag/Republicans want to do. They want to take the Social Security money and invest it in Wall Street thinking Social Security will reap a greater benefit. Well, that is fine if the market is stable. Just ask those who lost 90% of the value of their 401K's when the market slid how well it works. Your monthly benefit could go up OR go down depending on market fluctuations. My guess is that it won't go up as much as the market because there are predators out there to skim off the top, but if the market drops, you lose your ass. Oh, that's right Wall Street types can always be trusted because they will have fewer regulations because the are honorable people.Do you really think Hedge Fund Managers who make billions in one year would not be licking their chops? Not if the Tea Baggers are to be believed. No one runs a stop sign, do they.

Balancing the budget, now this one is very interesting. Tea Bag/Republicans want to balance the budget. Ummm....10 years ago when they swept in after the Clinton presidency, the budget was not only balanced, but had a surplus. So what happened? Three things. The Republicans went on a spending spree and to make matters worse came up with temporary tax cuts for the wealthy AND created the unfunded Part D Medicare program, Drugs. The tax cuts cost $2 trillion, the Part D?, Though not made public until 2004, the CMS's 2003 estimate was $534 billion for the period 2004 to 2013. In CMS's February 2005 estimate, the 10-year price tag of the drug provision is $724 billion for the period 2006 to 2015.

Untax and spend. The 8 Bush budgets totaled -$3.418 Trillion in deficit spending. The previous 8 years totaled -$321 Billion. The final Clinton budget surplus in 2000 was $230 billion. Ok..lets do some real quick math. Had Bush's crowd maintained the status quo and we extrapolate the final $230B surplus 8 years out and then deduct the cost of Part D (which was unfunded), when Mr. Obama took office our Federal debt would have been REDUCED by $1.306 TRILLION !!! This is a swing of $4.724 Trillion !!! The other silver lining, all things being equal...8 million of the 23 million jobs gained during the Clinton years would have been saved. Based upon these FACTS and my theorizing, all things being equal, would we be in the mess we are in today? The Tea Baggers want to add another $2 Trillion to the debt by keeping the Bush tax cuts which were so devastating to our economy without ANY offsets. Where do you find $2 trillion in offsets and also balance the budget at the same time? It would take 20 years of surpluses just to recover the $4.724 we lost due to the Bush/Republican policies, again..all things being equal. Tea Baggers would have us believe that extending the tax cuts is a job killer. Well, since the tax cuts we have LOST 8 million jobs. The 8 years prior to the tax cuts, 23 million jobs were created. These are the facts, check them out.

In the heading, I have suggested a silver lining in all of this. Yes, we are lemmings. We are a stupid, little people with a very short attention span. The next 2 years, under Tea Bag/Republican control, the House will demonstrate how incompetent they are to govern. Any repeal of any Obama administration will be met with a veto. Tea Baggers will fight more with the Republican establishment and eventually be absorbed and rendered ineffective by the time their terms are up in 2012 thus guaranteeing Mr. Obama's second term. Mr. Obama is a smart man and he knows that the policies he already has in place will turn this mess around without the help of the Tea Baggers or Republicans. The Republicans have gone on record that their number one priority is to destroy the Obama presidency. How un-American is that? We elect these people to work for US, not to focus on destroying a presidency. This in NOT governing, it's petty and treasonous. Our system of government was designed to compel all to work together with checks and balances. There is nothing written that it is the right of one branch to destroy the other, in fact just the opposite.

Second Amendment solution? We are not a Third World country are we? We are a civilized society and to suggest, quite clearly that if the government does not do the bidding of the Tea Baggers, they reserve the option of a Second Amendment solution. We are not Pakistan or India where they shoot their leaders, are we? On the other hand, maybe we are. Look what happened in Kentucky and Alaska. Private security detaining a journalist because he wanted to ask a question of a Tea Bag candidate. Rand Paul's goons attacked a woman, stomped her on the head, sending her to hospital with a concussion. Glen Beck said that we have to fear Democrats and their violence.

All we have to do is look to history on this planet to find examples of the potential danger of the Tea Baggers. Let us revisit the Wiemar Republic after The Great War. Germany was under crushing debt, war reparations, the French. Unemployment was out of control, the country was disintegrating. Through this time a former Corporal and paper hanger emerged as the hope for a new Germany. He struggled in the beginning, spending time in Landsburg Prison where he wrote My Struggle, a book which after it was published actually outsold the Holy Bible. His goal was to restore Germany to her rightful place as the economic and military power house of Europe. From the beginning at beer halls and ending at mass rallies at Nuremberg. His was a grassroots effort to change Germany forever. He started small, but intelligently. National Socialists did not take over the government in a 2nd Amendment fashion, they did it legally, through elections. This is not to say that violence and intimidation were not used to facilitate certain gains, but in the end, they were elected by the masses. The ultimate goal of becoming Chancellor of Germany came by way of negotiating with the business powerhouses of Germany. Not unlike the Republicorp branding Moveon.org has come up with. With business leaders behind him, Hitler could now become the leader Germany wanted. Von Hindenburg gave in and appointed him Chancellor. The pieces were now in place. 2nd Amendment remedies were now used to maintain control and quell any opposition, starting with the brown shirts who helped putting him in power. His first order of business was to keep his promises, within two years unemployment dropped to nearly zero. The Ruhr was retaken and industry awakened. Massive government programs to build a new Germany started. The economy stabilized. Hitler's philosophy was always, the German people would gladly give up some rights to gain safety, security, employment and a stable government. We must be wary of such politicians. Thankfully in our system, it is highly unlikely that this sort of drastic political change can take place, but it could happen if the Tea Baggers are able to make greater inroads. Change like this will not happen overnight, it would be long and insidious. Like any avalanche, once it starts, it's nearly impossible to stop.

Tenthers. Tenthers would have you believe that states rights are being infringed upon by the Federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled in EVERY single case against the states. Why? It's very simple and the Tea Baggers just don't get it. It is true that under the Constitution the Federal government cannot compel the states to do certain things, except for one minor detail, which seems to have gotten lost along with the truth. If you as a state accept Federal money for anything, the Federal government can withhold those funds if you do not do what you are told to do. This is LEGAL according to the Supreme Court. The answer is VERY SIMPLE. All the state has to do is ask their Congressional delegates and Senators to add an amendment to any funding bill which excludes their state. This way the Feds have nothing to hold over you. If you have a natural disaster, don't ask for Federal money. If you want to rebuild your infrastructure, don't ask for Federal help. After all, as I recall as a condition of receiving Federal highway or infrastructure monies, the states must pay to maintain those things. The reality is, the states don't in all cases. If you don't want money for education or school lunch programs, don't accept it. The whining is tantamount to biting the hand that feeds you.

Education. Funny. Not only does education make us more competitive, it also makes us a smart people and smart people don't vote Tea Bag or Republican. Enough said.

Jobs. Who in the hell decided that the government is responsible for job creation? The only jobs the government creates is in support of government. The vast majority of business does not have government contracts. The one's that do don't want any funding cuts from the Federal government. The government can influence by job creating in the private sector by giving tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas. My feeling is that if you as a business want a tax break by shipping jobs overseas, then do it on a level playing field. I would have no problem with a condition to that tax break such as these. To collect the tax break, you must pay foreign based employees a fair market US wage. You would have to collect Social Security taxes and Federal withholding. These taxes would be collected by American employees to benefit Americans. By compelling offshore employers to pay the same as here does two things, it will provide foreign derived Federal income to help offset the unemployment costs and re-education costs because of the transfer of employment overseas.

In closing, the electorate is going to find out quickly that by electing these nut jobs, the power they will yield will be nothing compared to those they replaced. The Senate and House operate on a seniority basis and if you think these new folk are going to be able to bring home the bacon their predecessors did, they have another thing coming. Harry Reid is a perfect example. By losing him and his power, the state of Nevada will fall into oblivion on a national basis. Anything special he could have provided by virtue of his standing will be gone. Harry Reid could have saved Nevada, Engle will lead it to it's mediocrity and if that is what Nevadans want, then so be it.