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?

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. 

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?

Extremist Right Wingers

Today I was blocked by FreedomWorks Facebook page. Guess the idea of trying to have a conversation with the extremist right wing is against their policy. To set the record straight, I was not abusive towards anyone. All I tried to do was correct the falsehoods and outright lies and propaganda being published by FreedomWorks.

I used widely available facts to support my argument against the rantings of the extreme right. I had camped out on the DC's page and ran into the same mentality. I disassociated myself from the DC voluntarily when it was clear, that nothing I could say or prove with irrefutable facts was going to make a difference to the vast majority there.

This all started out as a sort of investigation into the extremist right wing mindset. I was curious as to what made them tick, what their motivations are. In short, I found these people racist, uneducated, myopic ideologues. Not surprisingly they see anyone who does not blindly subscribe to their ideology as a leftist, libtard, progressive, socialist, communist, Marxist or in the case of a recognized Republican, a RINO.

The majority believe our President is a Muslim, a communist, a socialist. They say he should be impeached.

I took three basic approaches to see if I could find a break though. 1) I would try to educate folks to the facts. 2) I would ask them to provide alternative solutions to the issues we face as a nation (when there was an answer it was always the same, impeach) 3) I would ask them to elaborate or provide some proof to support their argument.

Education: One example would be with regards to EPA and Cap and Trade. The extremist right wing believes that EPA is unconstitutionally trying to enforce Cap and Trade through the 'back door'. Here is the truth they absolutely refused to accept, which I think is the reason why I was banned. In 2007 the SCOTUS ruled that EPA has the authority to regulate green house gases (GHG) and instructed the Bush appointed EPA administrator to promulgate rules for enforcement. After nearly 4 years of public hearings and industry input, the rules were published and went into force last January. The argument the extreme rightists make is that we will be taxed and make energy more expensive and will bankrupt small business. This is totally false. In a nutshell the rules are as follows: Permits will be issued by the states for new large polluting plants, such as, power plants..etc. Permits will also be issued if an existing polluter makes major modification to their plants. There is no mandatory retrofitting. Specifically excluded from the permits are small business. Now, I am no tree hugger, but these rules seem reasonable to me. The Republicans have a bill pending to strip EPA of the authority, specifically related to GHG. We all know the Senate and President will NOT approve it, so do they. The thing is, nothing what the extremists are saying is true in any shape or form.

Alternative solutions: I will use the insanity in Wisconsin as this example. As we all know, WI had a budget surplus of $123M at the end of January. Walker called a special session and instituted 4 laws giving tax breaks to business and wealthy. In doing so he ended up with a $140M deficit. To pay for the tax cuts he asked the public employees to pay more of their health care and pensions. I did not think this was fair, if we believe in shared sacrifice. I suggested the better way to go was to give tax breaks equaling the surplus, then work on across the board cuts, not targeting specific groups. Of course, when I mentioned that..all hell broke loose. Get rid of the unions was the mantra. So I asked the question, if you were Governor, what would you do to deal with the deficit? The answer....get rid of the unions. That's it. Over and over again, it's all about unions. I asked the question, if WI got rid of all the unions, what would that solve? How would that balance the budget? The answer? Get rid of the unions. It's like listening to a broken record. When I suggested that by taking between $4 and 9K of take home pay away from 200,000 people, it will certainly impact their purchasing power, sales tax revenue will drop and so will income from income taxes as those dollars are pre-tax dollars. Fiscal insanity. of course, the rant about unions continued. It's enough to piss off the Pope.

Proof: When someone would make an outrageous claim, such as...say that Americare is socialist medicine, government run healthcare, I would ask them to substantiate their claim. Silence. Virtually every time I would ask a person to elaborate on their statement, silence. If a person wanted impeachment, I would ask, what crime has he committed? Silence. Backroom deals? What backroom deals are you talking about? Silence.

To be fair though, not all people who go there are this way. There are a few who will have a discussion with you and both learn from each other.

I did offer an olive branch of sorts in the form of a suggestion. I postulated this theory.

The first warning is the fact there are no credible Republican candidates for President. The reasoning is simple. Any Republican will have to an extremist or the Tea Parties will reject them. That person will have to run against both the Tea Parties and a sitting President. This guarantees a landslide of biblical proportions for Mr. Obama. My suggestion to the extremists is this, tone down the rhetoric. The response? Of course..impeach Obama.

And then there is Americare (Obamacare). Their logic escapes me. If you mention the fact if they drive they have to carry auto insurance by law or pay the price for it. Silence. They don't like the mandate that uninsured people who could buy their own and won't. I would ask, so your saying that if an uninsured 30 something, with a decent job shows up at a hospital with a broken arm from playing softball, can get treatment and walk away with the hospital, government, state, insurance companies and employees future pay raises footing the bill? This is a matter of personal responsibility and the rest of us should not have to pay for their irresponsibility. We are paying for it now, all we are doing with the mandate is shifting the financial burden to the individual who receives treatment, where it should be. So why should a deadbeat not pay for their own health care? I don't get it.

Okay, enough for my rant for the day.

Merry meet ya'll.

Republican Tax Breaks for the wealthy?

Okay, someone explain this to me in simple terms. When the Repubs were asked to vote for extending unemployment bennies, they said NO, not unless there were offsets, in other words, they had to be paid for without affecting the deficit. The Repubs ranted on about the stimulus law, that it increased the deficit and would produce NO new jobs. Well, it did create or save millions of jobs, clearly it worked, but still the issue of the increased deficit is what they ran on before the last election. Repubs promised to fight for spending reductions and lower taxes to match. When given the opportunity to partially resolve the tax and spend issues with PayGo, which 7 Repub Senators co-sponsored, those 7 Senators would not vote for their own bill. I have heard NOTHING from the Tea Baggers on this latest debacle. Now the Repubs are signing off on tax breaks for not only those making less than $250K in PERSONAL, not corporate income, but for those who fared very well with the tax breaks for the uber wealthy. What makes no sense is this. If they would not sign off unemployment bennies without offsets, why is it okay now? They would not sign off on any spending without offsets, yet now they are willing to do so to the tune of $700B over the next 2 years! This $700B adds to the deficit they want to reduce. A deficit they blamed Mr. Obama for and now they are willing to add to it. I am totally confused. How can you run an election on reducing the deficit, to reduce spending and to have offsets and then turn around and do exactly what they blames the Dems for? They railed against the bank bailouts and the auto maker bailouts, both of which have been successful.

Someone explain this to me so I can understand.

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.

Let us be honest about one thing, we are all racists.

Today the Republicans are hollering for Sen. Reid's removal from office about candidate Obama for saying, "light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,'". Now, Sen. Reid has apologised to the President and President Obama has accepted his apology.

The rationale the Republicans are using is because Sen. Trent Lott made a racially charged statement in public about Strom Thurmond, the nation would have been better off if Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948. Thurmond was an ardent segregationist and the Democratic governor of South Carolina when he mounted his third-party campaign. Lott later apologised and he resigned as Senate leader less than two weeks later. Lott resigned from the Senate in 2007. Reid is from Nevada, Lott from Mississippi.

Republicans are crying foul because they see this a double standard, yet if you put the two in context they are no where similar, the intent's completely different.

What Se. Reid said is in fact true, President Obama is light-skinned and he does not speak with a Negro accent. If we apply the same standard to Sen. Lott, that he honestly believed that Sen. Thurmond would have made a better President as a segregationist, then this is indeed a terrible thing to say to all Americans, Negroes especially.

Lets be real here, if Mr. Obama spoke like some rapper gangsta do you really think he would have been elected? Of course not. Impressions are everything. Personally I don't know what Sen. Reid had to apologise for.

Look, we are all racists in one form or another. It does not matter what color we are, what our heritage is, we as people tend to live and associate with those of 'our kind'. Sure there are exceptions, but not that many. Blacks aren't thrilled with Caucasians, Cubans don't like Mexicans, Mexicans don't like Spaniards. The list goes on and on. I don't know, maybe it is the word Negro? To be honest, growing up in the South, they were Coloreds. The "N" word was reserved for use by uneducated folks, both Negro and Caucasian. First it was Colored, then Black, then African-American. Honestly I choose not to keep up. As long as someone is going to call me a 'white guy" instead of Caucasian, then I will choose my choice of terms. You cannot expect respect unless you are willing to give it. Let me put it this way, how ridiculous this all is. Tiger Woods is half Thai and half Negro, so what is he? Negro. Why Negro instead of Thai? Hines Ward of the Pittsburgh Steelers is half Korean and half Negro, so what is he? Negro. Why Negro instead of Korean? Who makes up these rules? The whole concept, system is racist. What it boils down to is this, if you are not perceived as anything but Caucasian, you are something else. As I recall, in Louisiana if you were 1/32 Negro, you were in the eyes of the state a Negro.

So what of the Cuban baseball player? He looks like an African American, but we are insulting HIS heritage by pigeonholing him. He's a Cuban-American just as much as a Cuban of Spanish decent, right? The thing is we don't see him as such.

As far as Blacks or African-Americans are concerned, I refer them as Negro. It simplifies the process without the possibility of offending anyone on rational grounds. After all, what is the Spanish word for black? Negro.

My preference is to call anyone who is not Caucasian a POC. Person of Colour, if we are to segregate our society as we do. When filling out a Federal questionnaire that has racial questions, I refuse to answer as it has nothing to do with anything.

Nothing gripes me more than listening to talking heads on TV saying, well this percentage of Blacks will vote this way or Hispanics that way. That to me IS racist.

The new Tea Baggers, Tenthers and Birthers are all racists. ALL I SAID. They won't come out and say it, but listen to their platforms. It's the same states rights argument, repackaged. Look at the kinds of people who flock to these groups, ignorant white trash who either don't or won't use their own brains. By their own admission, they are all white.

My own brother is a Tenther/Tea Bagger. He's is teaching his 14 year old son to be a sniper just in case. In case of what? Just who is he going to shoot? We know full well who.

So instead of complaining about a double standard, especially since by his resignation the Republicans would be getting their wish, killing off any hope for any reforms the President is asking Congress for. The Republicans have gone on record as saying they want the President to fail. Now why would they want that, after all, aren't they American's too?

The President made a profound statement last week about ending partisanship, instead practicing citizenship. Good words to go by.

OBTW, I am speaking for myself.