History Supports Health Care Mandate

One complaint about President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is that it forces uninsured people to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, an argument the Supreme Court will have to consider before making a ruling on the law this June. Those opposed to the law tout the Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases. However, history would prove them wrong. Harvard Law School professor Einer Elhauge, has found several examples to the contrary.



In 1790, at the very First Congresses second session, page 134, a law passed called "An Act for the government and regulation of seamen in the merchants service," Section 8, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen. how's that for a health care mandate?

In 1792, at the Second Congresses first session, page 417, a law passed called The Second Militia Act of 1792 ("An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.") The law required nearly every "free able-bodied white male citizen" age 18 to 44, within six months, "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges," along with balls and gunpowder. A rifle could be substituted. The purpose was to establish a uniform militia.

Finally in 1798, during the fifth Congresses second session, page 77, was passed the Marine Hospital Service Act ("An Act for the relief of sick and disabled Seamen"). The law expanded the 1790 act and required every ship owner or master coming into a port to pay 20 cents per seaman for every month each worker had been employed. The funds, which could be withheld from the seamen, were used "to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established" in the port. Leftover funds were used to create hospitals for those mariners.

In regard to the blessing of our founding fathers to such requirements, over 20 of the original 55 framers were involved with this legislation at one time or another. The 1790, and 1792 bills, were signed into law by the father of the country, George Washington. The 1798 act was signed into law by another founder, President John Adams. Professor Elhauge adds "I don’t think anyone objected to any of these laws on constitutional grounds, which presumably someone would have if it was obvious that the original understanding was that such an obligation would be unconstitutional." He continues, "This precedent (like the others) disproves the challengers’ claim that the framers had some general unspoken understanding against purchase mandates. In oral arguments before the court a few weeks ago, the challengers also argued that the health insurance mandate was not “proper” in a way that allows it to be justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause. These precedents rebut that claim because they indicate that the framers thought not just purchase mandates but medical insurance mandates were perfectly proper indeed."

So there you have it. It's to bad Professor Elhauge couldn't be with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli when making the governments case. However, maybe the Justices will happen across this information as we have, lets hope.

NOTE: A special thanks to loyal long time member Richard Bondurant, for bringing this to my attention, way to go Rich!

Hillary Rosen "Controversy" Is A Republican Nice Try

As one of many media manufactured crisis we are going to see in the next 6 months, the most recent comes from democratic strategist and CNN contributor Hillary Rosen. She recently created a firestorm with her comment attacking Mitt Romney's wife, Ann. In a discussion where Rosen was trying to point out the only way Mitt Romney can connect with women is through his wife, she said Ann Romney had, “never worked a day in her life”. So the media ran with it and turned it into an attack on stay at home moms. Ann Romney responded to Rosen by saying, “My career choice was to be a mother and I think all of us need to know we need to respect choices that women make. Other women make choices to have a career and raise a family, which I think Hilary Rosen has actually done herself. I respect that, that’s wonderful. But there are other people that have a choice, and we have to respect women and all those choices that they make”.

As soon as Rosen's comments hit the airwaves, President Obama, his chief advisers, and the Democratic party leadership, all denounced Rosen's comment. Nobody in 2012 thinks raising children at home is an easy job, that is not the issue, as much as Republicans would have us believe. Mitt and Ann Romney are Republicans. The latest ABC/Washington Post poll of women voters is Obama 57%, Romney 38%, that's a 19 point difference. It is not a "fiction", it is not the result of Obama's economic policies, it is based on facts. Aside from this incredibly lame attempt to put the President on the defensive, the "war on women" is, and continues to be, lead by Republicans. In their words, in their deeds, in their legislation, Republicans cannot run from their actions.

They want to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides thousands of women access to preventive health care they otherwise would not receive. They want life defined at conception. They have offered hundreds of pieces of legislation to limit abortion, access to abortion, and basic pre-natal care. They want to repeal health care reform that makes women pay more just because they're women. They balked on the renewal of the "Violence Against Women Act". When a Romney aide was asked if he supports the "Lilly Ledbetter Act" (which promotes equal pay for women in the workplace), after a 10 second pause he replied, "I'll have to get back to you on that..." The Blunt-Rubio Amendment to the President's health care reform would have allowed employers to deny contraception coverage to women "at their discretion" the amendment was so vague, employers could refuse coverage basically on a whim. Add the countless state efforts to extend waiting times for abortions, forcing women to have invasive and medically unnecessary procedures. They even go so far as to legalize giving women false and misleading information, like abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, which is patently false. They go even further to include protections for the doctors that, under law, have to provide this information. These are all REPUBLICAN IDEAS they may not want to talk about it, they can claim it's false, or fiction, but the truth speaks much louder than any Republican talking point.

The real question here is when Ann Romney says, "we have to respect women and all those choices that they make”, does that include a woman's right to choose? a woman's right to preventive health care? a women's right to be told the truth? a woman's right to be unencumbered by medically unnecessary and invasive procedures that make a difficult situation even more so? a woman's right to get health care at the same cost as men? That my friends is the REAL question here, and the FACTS say NO!

Santorum Is Out, Let The Campaigns Begin

After 11 state victories, and the highly improbable success achieved by Rick Santorum over the last 4 months, The Republican nomination process is effectively over. After a weekend of soul searching, compounded by the hospitalization of his daughter Bella, Father Rick announced his 2012 race for the White House was over.

Several factors can be looked at for his departure from the race at this time. The health of his daughter, is seen as genuine, but from a political stand point probably not a major factor. The major contributor, from my perspective, is the realization he was not going to be able to carry his home state of Pennsylvania. As badly as he wanted to somehow erase his 18 point loss to Bob Casey in 2006, the fact is the polling just wasn't going his way. Add to that the scorched earth strategy Mitt Romney had put into full force, and Santorum was on the ropes before the fight began. On April 3rd, Santorum held a 6 point lead in Pennsylvania, on that same day he lost by 4 points in Wisconsin. By April 5th, Romney had taken a 5 point lead in Pennsylvania, that's an 11 point swing in just 2 days. The battle would have been hard fought, but catastrophic for Santorum if he had lost his home state for a second time.

As I see it, Santorum's lost his chance at the nomination just before the Michigan primary. One week out, and with Romney on the ropes in his home state, Santorum started to verbalize his radical views on women's rights, contraception, and the role of religion in government. This sent just enough people running for cover, which in turn allowed Romney to win Michigan, and put Father Rick on the slippery slope that ended yesterday in Gettysburg Pennsylvania. In addition, his failure to get off those highly charged and incendiary issues, helped further promote his losses in Ohio, Illinois, and finally Wisconsin. He had an excellent chance at winning the Republican nomination, if he had just not taken the exit to crazy town. Sadly, that is an address that more and more Republicans are calling home, and it will carry a similar cost come November.

So mark your calenders, yesterday began the 2012 Presidential race in earnest. It is going to be Mitt Romney (R) vs. Barack Obama (D). The contrast between candidates couldn't be more stark, and the stakes for the nation couldn't be higher. So let the games begin, and may the best man win.

Popular Vote vs. Electoral College, Will You Decide?

There has been an ongoing debate for years on the merits of the Electoral College system set up in the Constitution, and a growing cry to change that system to elect the President by the popular vote. While my initial instinct is to resist any major changes to the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers, which this would be, the latest arguments for a popular vote system do hold some merit. To weigh the arguments being made, we must first understand how each system works.

Every 10 years the U.S. Census, by counting the nations population, determines how each state is to be represented in Congress for the next 10 years. A states electoral total is equal to the number of Congressional districts, plus its 2 Senators. For example New Jersey has 14 electoral votes, 12 Congressional districts plus its 2 Senators. Under the current Electoral College system the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that state, would win ALL of that states electoral votes. Basically a winner takes all system.

In a direct popular vote system, the electoral votes would be given out proportionally. So say the popular vote in N.J. is split down the middle 50-50? Each candidate would receive 7 electoral votes proportional to the popular vote. It seems reasonable with one major exception. In a system where political power is fought for so tenaciously by both parties, it could open the door to a situation like the Florida vote in 2000, on a national scale. This was the exact sentiment echoed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who recently called this “the most important issue in America that nobody is talking about”. He went on to explain the National Popular Vote movement is “getting dangerously close to achieving their goal of eliminating the Electoral College without actually amending the Constitution -- without anybody even noticing..." He continued, The national popular vote would give “every precinct in America the incentive to have a recount so that recounts are going on in 50 states … When the national popular vote total is the way the president is chosen, then every vote in America in every precinct in America would become the subject for endless litigation. There wouldn’t be a chance the presidency would be resolved by Jan. 20 in time for swearing in.” This would, McConnell said, be “a catastrophic outcome” and “a constitutional crisis” that “brings this country to its knees. We’ve never had a situation where the president wasn’t sworn in by the date specified in the Constitution.”

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill preserves the Electoral College, while ensuring that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election. The National Popular Vote law has been enacted by states possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it.

So no matter where you stand on this very important issue, it is equally important to at least become aware of the effort that may change the way we vote, and pick our Presidents. I tend to believe "if it's not broken, don't fix it." The current system has carried us this far, I say stay true to the Constitution. When you begin to alter the intent of that document in a major way, by some state legislated back door process, you're opening a huge can of worms. However, if the National Popular Vote sounds interesting to you, here is a link to give you more information about their arguments and goals.

http://www.fairvote.org/solutions-and-the-case-for-reform

Be informed people, the Constitution is about to be changed without amending that very document. A scary proposition no matter what the issue may be.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus Is A Colossal Ass Hat

As if the GOP doesn't have enough problems, their fearless leader and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus joined the chorus of looney tunes from the Right. He said, "If the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars and every mainstream media outlet talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on caterpillars, then we'd have problems with caterpillars," he told Bloomberg Television, in response to a question about the party's supposed "war on women." "It's a fiction."

Maybe he's confused, Dictionary.Com defines Fiction like this: something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story. An imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but lets check the facts one more time.

The Republican controlled House has passed, 44 bills on Abortion, 99 on Religion, 105 on Family Relationships and Gay Marriage, 67 on Firearms/Gun Control, 552 on Taxation, and conducted 445 Government Investigations, mostly on subjects that were settled, but Republicans wanted to reanimate for political gain. Since the "War on Women" was noted in the context of his comment, I would simply refer you to the recent embarrassment by The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. When Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) held a hearing on contraception with no women at the hearing.



Those bills I note are just on the federal level. It doesn't count the hundreds of pieces of legislation taken up and passed by the states. Against women's rights, women's health care, abortion rights, are these all a fiction? Mitt Romney has a 19 point gender gap with women voters, that's not a fiction it's a fact. These proposals, all of which were generated by the Republicans are facts, not fiction. Republicans don't have a "War on Caterpillars", but they damn near have a war on everything else. Women's issues are just one of many "Wars" the right has engaged in. They attack gay rights, immigration, the poor, health care reform, voters, even the President himself.

This morning Romney's communications director Eric Fehrnstromon, on The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch himself, called all these "Wars", sideshows. He said President Obama has more sideshows than P.T. Barnum, Really? If RNC Chairman Priebus thinks he can wash away everything his party has done, and continues to do, as fiction, he's not only beyond reality, he's a liar too. My suggestion for Mr. Priebus would be a find psychiatrist, and start a healthy course of anti-psychotics. For the leader of the Republican National Committee to, in one broad stroke, try to wipe away years of Right wing efforts to undermine all the issues I list here, that my friends is the real FICTION.

Some Facts About Voter ID Laws

As I have stated in the past, leave it to Republicans to find a problem where one does not exist. Case in point, the surge in voter I.D. laws sweeping the country. The Right would have you believe these as necessary measures to protect against rampant voter fraud. The fact is there is no rampant voter fraud. It is just another smoke screen conservatives are using to suppress votes they generally don't profit from, i.e.: minorities, the elderly, the poor, and the young. They would also have you believe this is not just a Republican effort, but look at the chart below. (click to make larger)

Of the 31 states listed, the 15 states with the harshest voter I.D. laws, that's with a photo standard, or a photo exception, 14 of them have Republican Governors and both state legislatures controlled by Republicans. The number goes up to 20 states if you also count the non-photo I.D. laws. Only 5 states had Democratic Governors and both state legislatures controlled by Democrats. All but Hawaii, chose the non-photo I.D. option. Here is the breakdown: (Click to make larger)



DARK RED: Photo I.D Standard - Republican. Gov. - Republican State Legislatures

RED: Optional Photo I.D. Standard - Republican Gov. - Republican State Legislatures

PINK: Non-Photo I.D. Standard - Republican Gov. - Republican State Legislatures

BLUE: Non-Photo I.D. Standard - Democratic Governor - Democratic State Legislatures

(Except Hawaii which has an Optional Photo I.D. Standard)

LIGHT BLUE: Non Photo I.D. Standard - Democratic Gov. - Republican or Split State Legislatures

So you can see for yourself, when progressives talk about the Republican war on voters, they have the facts to back them up. As well as the efforts in New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Minnesota, where attempts by the Republican controlled legislatures were vetoed by their Democratic Governors. So as Ronald Reagan once said, "facts are funny things", and the intent here couldn't be more obvious. When your party becomes less inclusive, and driven by outdated ideological dogmas, that only appeal to the faithful few, these are the kind of things you try to do. If you can't scare them into voting for you, you try to disenfranchise your opponents most vulnerable supporters, under the guise of addressing voter fraud that doesn't exist. Yet another in a long line of Republican boogie men that have no teeth. So add it to the list, oil and gasoline prices, the attack on religious freedom, as an excuse to attack women's rights, the crusade against voter fraud, always remember... its all a lot of crap.

Romney Can't Deliver The Knockout Blow

Despite sweeping last nights 3 primaries, Mitt Romney just can't seem to put Rick Santorum away. Romney won with 49% of the vote in Maryland, and 70% in the District of Columbia. However, in Wisconsin where the Massachusetts Governor was polling 5 to 10 points in front of Santorum, he only pulled out a 4 point victory, falling within the margin of error. Wisconsin, which many thought of as Santorum's Waterloo, once again failed to deliver the knockout blow the Romney camp was hoping for. Having won with such a weak performance in Wisconsin, can father Rick live to fight another day?

The media, as well as, the Republican establishment, have been saying a Santorum loss in Wisconsin would be his death knell. I'm sure the Romney people want to promote that view, but Santorum refuses to go away. He has pledged to remain in the primary process until Romney gets the 1,144 delegates needed to capture the nomination. So what are the major questions going forward? 1) Can Santorum resist the pressure to get out of the race, so Romney can begin to consolidate his position against the President? 2) Can Santorum survive the 3 week barrage of negative ads that Romney is sure to send his way? 3) The next five primaries on April 24th heavily favor Governor Romney, with the exception of Pennsylvania, which is Santorum's home state. Current polling has the former Senator up by 6 points over Romney. 4) Can Santorum pull off a win in Pennsylvania, and survive into May where the contests shift dramatically in his favor.

Wisconsin is just another in a string of missed opportunities, that have plagued the Romney campaign since January. If he had pulled off the decisive 12 point win he got in Illinois, then yes, I would say Santorum is effectively out. The problem is he didn't, and it is hard to consolidate your nomination with narrow victories and luke warm endorsements. The key for Santorum now is Pennsylvania. The other 4 primaries April 24th are lost causes, he shouldn't even waste his time with them. He needs to hit Pennsylvania hard for the next 3 weeks, and he must win his home state. If he fails, the May contests might fall apart in favor of Romney, who will have beaten Father Rick on his home turf.

If Santorum can make it to May, he has a great chance to give Romney a black eye all month long. Which would look really bad if you are the presumed nominee. The fact is in those states whose populations identify as over 50% evangelical, typically go to Santorum. In those states where evangelicals are less than 50%, Romney wins. So I would submit Pennsylvania, not Wisconsin is Father Rick's Waterloo. If he pulls out a big win at home he lives to fight another day, and continues to be that ever present thorn in Mitt Romney's side. Santorum's biggest problem is time, 3 weeks is a political eternity. One that Romney will utilize to the fullest, but if he can find a way to survive, May will prove to be much greener pastures, and bad news for Romney. One more thing, this isn't about Santorum winning the nomination anymore, it's about giving a voice to all those social conservatives who can't stand Romney, and know in their hearts he's going to get the nomination. It's about showing the American electorate we may have to take Romney, but we don't have to like it, and that is good for just one man, President Obama.

What Does The Paul Ryan Budget Mean To You?

Last Thursday the House of Representatives approved a $3.5 trillion budget plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on a 228 to 191 vote, largely along party lines. The House vote breakdown was 228 Republicans in favor, 181 Democrats and 10 Republicans opposed. The plan will fail to pass the Democratically controlled Senate, but what is behind this vision for America the GOP affectionately calls "The Path To Prosperity"? Lets look at three keys provisions.

Health Care: Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, or as the GOP likes to call it Obamacare. They raise $725 Billion dollars that would otherwise go to help people get, or keep, health insurance. Beginning in 2023 Medicare eligibility would rise from 65 to 67. Instead of the government reimbursing doctors and hospitals for certain medical services, seniors would purchase a private health care plan among numerous options on an exchange. The government would then pay the private insurer in the form of a subsidy up to a specified amount. Seniors would be given government assistance to purchase private health-insurance plans, or could continue to take part in the current fee-for-service model. However, spending would be capped, meaning risks and costs could shift to seniors as health-care costs rise. Changes to Medicare in the plan would not affect those currently age 55 and over. As for Medicaid, House Republicans would overhaul Medicaid by changing the way the federal government finances the program. Today, it is a matching program which means if a state adds more Medicaid recipients to the rolls in the case of a recession, the federal government helps with that cost by matching a certain percentage. The GOP plan would change the program by block granting it - which means giving a set number of funds to the states. Proponents of this plan say it will give governors the flexibility to administer the Medicaid program as they see fit while giving the federal government some control over the cost, but if your grant money dries up your S.O.L.

Social Security: "In the event that the Social Security Program is not sustainable" the GOP budget plan would require the president and the House and Senate to all come up with ideas to ensure the program's solvency. But Ryan does not offer his own plan on how to ensure Social Security's long-term viability. The buzz word here has been "Individual Health Savings Accounts" meaning, dismantle the government program in favor of individual responsibility. It's like telling an 18 year old to start saving for your retirement, here's how, "good luck with that." Pretty much the same battle we have raging in the Supreme Court with freedom vs. freeloaders. The problem is the same, and the results just as disastrous should such a system go in place. Would you like to be part of the generation that has to provide for your own retirement, if you live check to check, and consistently struggle to make ends meet?

Taxes: Details are still murky -- The "Path to Prosperity" does propose collapsing the six individual tax brackets into just two brackets, taxed at 10 and 25 percent. This would cut taxes on the rich from 25% to 35%, he also suggests closing loopholes and ending subsidies, but doesn't give specifics. To make up for that revenue they propose closing tax loopholes, eliminating special carve outs, and tax credits. They also argue that allowing individuals and businesses that can keep more money will help grow the economy at a faster rate. But the report does not get into specific tax credits, and carve outs, that would be eliminated? Some analyses suggest the only way to generate that kind of revenue would mean raising the tax burden on middle-income earners to pay for the lowered tax rate for the wealthy. Republicans insist wealthy taxpayers benefit disproportionately from loopholes, (even though they can't tell us which ones they'll eliminate?), and they are committed to a progressive code with lower rates for the rich. Ryan’s budget would cut $5.3 trillion from deficits over the next decade, bringing deficits down from more than 8 percent of gross domestic product to 1.2 percent by 2022. It would not balance the budget, however, until 2040. Once again the majority of his plan hinges on budget cuts, and a bigger burden on the poor, and middle class.

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney endorses this plan, but why wouldn't he? It helps the rich at the expense of the middle class. The man has houses with car elevators to build. Democrats critical of the plan said it would cut deficits by hitting programs relied on by the poor and vulnerable, like Medicaid, food stamps, education and other programs. “Because our Republican colleagues refuse to ask millionaires to contribute one cent to deficit reduction, they hit everyone and everything else,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) during House debate. White House spokesman Jay Carney said Thursday that the Ryan plan would create “a segmented replacement for Medicare that would burden seniors and end the program as we know it.”


So there you have it, an unyielding assault from the "Haves" on the "Have Nots". A hard nosed, often vague vision of what Republicans want their America to look like. I don't know about you, but for me, it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Mitt Romney The Train Wreck That Keeps On Giving

Mitt Romney picked up several luke warm endorsements last week. Namely from former President George H.W. Bush, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), author of the famed draconian Republican legislation that bears his name. Romney showed his support for the "Ryan Budget" which would destroy Medicare and Social Security as we know it. The plan would cost seniors an extra $6000 dollars a year, replace Medicare with a voucher program, slash Medicaid programs potentially kicking 14 Million people out of the system, dismantle the foundations of Social Security, as it currently exists, and give a $187,000 tax break to the rich. In addition to his support for Ryan, he voiced support for embattled Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is facing a recall election in the coming months.

Romney was on the campaign trail in Wisconsin, which holds its primary this coming Tuesday. The latest polling has Romney leading in the badger state, anywhere from 5 to 10 points, against his closest rival Rick Santorum. Many believe the state is a must win for Santorum, but despite that, win or lose, the former Pennsylvania Senator has vowed to stay in the race until Romney gets the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination. So it is distinctly possible the Republican nominating fight will continue well into the final primaries in June.

Let's not forget Governor Romney's gaff of the week. The latest came last Thursday when he unprompted, decided to share an anecdote he described as "humorous." For those who missed the episode and can't watch clips online, the gist of the story is that Romney's father shut down an auto factory in Michigan, and moved production to Wisconsin. The "humorous" part came later, when George Romney's political strategists didn't want a marching band playing "On, Wisconsin" during a Michigan gubernatorial campaign because it might remind voters of the closed factory. Because nothings funnier than joking about shutting down production at a Michigan auto plant and laying off its workers.

The former Massachusetts Governor has a 34% overall approval rating, has a double digit gap against him with women voters, and in the ever growing Hispanic community, has a 70% disapproval rating. He continues to flounder in his attempts to connect on any level, has captured a universal persona of being disingenuous, out of touch, and an out write liar. As long as Rick Santorum continues to nip at his heals, he can't close the deal until he does reach that magic number of 1,144. So with Santorum in for the long haul, even if Romney sweeps the 3 contests on Tuesday, the battle goes on. I'm not sure it's possible to run for President and keep your mouth shut, but if ever there was a candidate that needs to do it, it's Mitt Romney.

Some Thoughts On Health Care Reform

As many of you know, the major news of the week centered around the Supreme Courts review of the President's 2010 Affordable Care Act. The 3 major parts of the bill being debated are: 1) The individual mandate, which would require uninsured people to buy insurance, or face a penalty in some cases. 2) Can you remove the mandate, and maintain the integrity of the bill? 3) If you do remove the mandate, should the entire bill be scrapped, or can some provisions stand alone? These are the heart of the arguments that were presented over 3 days this week, to the high court. It is, and will become, one of the most important decisions the Supreme Court has issued in decades.


That being said, I think it fair that these same judicial heavy weights are the group that brought us the "Citizens United" decision, which scrapped over 100 years of precedent with regards to political finance reform. Sadly, like the nation itself, it is hopelessly divided along liberal and conservative ideologies. It would also be true to call the divide Republican vs. Democratic, it's simply a matter of semantics. The latest polling bears out the same divide among the electorate. Republicans dislike the bill by 75%, Democrats like the bill by 66%, and Independents are evenly divided at 40% for and against. We won't know the verdict until June, but the fact of the matter is that the decisions will be reached today.

The 2 major arguments come down to this: 1) Because of the unique nature of the health care market, which everyone will use at one time or another, can the government under the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution force people to buy insurance, or face a penalty if they do not. or 2) It is unconstitutional for the federal government to force people to buy health insurance if they don't want to, and further; if you grant this power to Congress here, where do you draw the line in the future? For these arguments I offer 2 examples. First, while it is totally constitutional for the states to enforce these kind of mandates, ie: car insurance. The question then falls to whether the federal government can do the same? Is it "necessary and proper" to impose a similar mandate by the federal government, through the "Commerce Clause" in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution? While there have been 236 years to more broadly define this power, I would point to my second point which is this, Social Security. Which in its simplest form is old age insurance, MANDATED by the federal government. As I see it, there is no credible distinction between this, and the Affordable Care Act. It is something everybody needs, so that those with insurance, don't end up paying for those who don't have it. It took monumental effort to achieve, and would be devastating to those already reaping the benefits of this legislation. It needs to be upheld, because if it is struck down, the current state of political affairs will not allow this issue to be addressed seriously for years, and the general welfare will suffer for it.

In closing I would add this. From the very inception of this legislation, the President, and the Democrats in Congress who drafted it, have NEVER, not even today, controlled the argument on the need for this legislation. It has been demonized by the Right for over 2 years, and if a greater effort was put into letting people know what this bill does for people had been pursued, we may not have even had the challenge that now lies before us at the Supreme Court. This bill is NOT an attack on Liberty, as some would have you believe. It is an imperfect, but necessary step in providing health care for the millions of uninsured Americans, who suffer daily through no fault of their own. My hope is that a majority of those 9 justices come to understand this, and uphold this crucial legislation.

Santorum Is Losing His Mojo

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum seems to be losing steam as the next three contests fast approach next Tuesday. Wisconsin which is being touted as a must win for Father Rick to stay in the race, seems to have slipped through his fingers. Just one month ago Santorum held a 16 point lead. Once again under the barrage of negative ads from Romney, who has outspent Santorum 9 to 1, the table has turned. Romney now holds an 8 point lead in the badger state, that's a 24 point shift. The other two contests in Maryland, and the District of Columbia, also seem to be lining up in Romney's column.

More bad news for Father Rick from his home state of Pennsylvania. Just two weeks ago he held a commanding 18 point lead in the keystone state, today his lead is just 2 points. As Romney begins to capture more high profile endorsements, the math, and the April contests, have made it almost impossible for Santorum to get the nomination. He would need to capture 79% of the remaining delegates, a task that is clearly out of reach.

However, the bad news isn't just Santorum's. As people begin to take a look at Mitt Romney, his numbers are dropping. His approval rating currently stands at 34%, while President Obama's approval is at 53%. In the three major battleground states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, once again the President is leading in all three states. Let's also not forget his gaff of the week. It regards the revelation that the former Massachusetts Governor plans to add a car elevator to his La Jolla estate in California, and his campaign’s subsequent defense of said elevator. However, it seems research shows Romney, as Governor, once vetoed a bill that would have, among other things, funded a $40,000 upgrade to make elevators compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. An elevator for his Bentley, screw the disabled. It is classic Romney, and just another out of touch moment for the masses to devour, as he continues to fail in his efforts to connect with regular people. Maybe he needs the elevator to help strap his dog on the roof of the car? just a thought.

As for Rick Santorum, seeing the writing on the wall, when asked if he would consider the V.P. spot he said, "I'll do whatever is necessary to help our country." What a trooper, if you can't beat em, join em. A suggestion that was not dismissed by Romney either, so we may still see Santorum as number 2, although to be honest, I've always seen him that way.

Santorum Scores Again In The South

The proverbial thorn in Mitt Romney's side, just won't go away. Louisiana gave Rick Santorum a 22 point victory in Saturday's Primary there. He carried every parish in the state except Orleans, home of New Orleans, which went to Romney. So we have yet another dispatch from the bumpkin belt voicing its unhappiness with the front runner Romney. The result comes as no surprise, and only stands as another example of Romney's inability to win in the south. In fact if you look at his numbers, excluding Florida (which isn't a true southern state), and Virginia, (where Santorum & Gingrich were not on the ballot), he can't seem to break the 31% mark. It should be noted that in the northern part of Florida, which is representative of the true south, Gingrich won hands down.

Romney's Southern Problem

South Carolina: 28%
Georgia: 26%
Tennessee: 28%
Alabama: 29%
Mississippi: 31%
Louisiana: 27%
Oklahoma: 28%

Despite the fact that he doesn't appeal to these states in the primaries, If I was Romney I wouldn't be overly concerned either that these states will go to Obama in November. They are all solid red bastions. However, it does raise some questions about the "solid south", that may give former Governor Romney pause. While it hasn't been talked about that much, the evangelical social conservative rubes that litter the landscape of the bumpkin belt, have a real problem with Romney's Mormon faith. They also don't see him as a true conservative. Romney's appeal has consistently been in the affluent suburban city areas, not the overwhelmingly rural areas that blanket the south. So the issue is this, we all know the majority of these states are going to vote for Romney, but will the electorates faith prevent them from embracing a candidate many see as being part of a cult? My guess is, probably not. Why? Because their hatred for Obama runs deeper than their religion. Which if you think about it, is a sad commentary on those who will be driven to the polls by that fact.

As for Father Rick, should he remain in the fight for the long haul, I can see him picking up 7 to 9 more states. The next one being Wisconsin a week from Tuesday. However, the writing is on the wall, and April is going to be a good month for Romney. My thought is this, the longer Romney has to fight Santorum, the better it is for the President. So here's to a long and bloody primary fight that carries us into June.

Romney Can't Keep A Good Thing Going

Well, what looked like a promising week for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, once again proved he was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. A pattern that has increasingly become the norm for the Romney campaign. The week began with his first solid primary win in Illinois, and a luke warm, but no less important, endorsement from former Florida governor Jeb Bush. Enter Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's senior campaign adviser. When asked in a CNN interview Wednesday morning whether the former Massachusetts governor had been forced to adopt conservative positions in the rugged race that could hurt his standing with moderates in November's general election. "I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes," Fehrnstrom responded. "It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again."


The king of gaffs, has now been out done by one of his political advisers, with devastating results. It is these type of ongoing missteps that continue to rob Romney's momentum. After a big win, he can't even escape a 24 hour news cycle without having the air let out of his balloon.

Why does this particular gaff carry ten times the power of his previous ones? I'll explain. Romney has struggled to connect with social conservatives, who don't like him personally, and basically don't trust him. He has had a terrible time trying to define his message, (whatever that is), to an electorate that is voting more against Obama, than it is for Romney. He already has a reputation for being disingenuous, pandering to groups while attempting to hit the political talking points they want to hear, regardless of what he may think on the issue.

Now take all these problems, and all the progress he has struggled to make on them in speeches, debates, interviews, rallies, and press events, and throw them all out the window. The new message is don't pay any attention what I'm telling you now, because come the general election, I'll just shake my Etch-A-Sketch, and all my previous comments and campaign rhetoric will be wiped clean. What more proof do you need to see, to recognize this man will do or say anything to become President? He has a side for every argument, and if you don't like it, he'll just shake his Etch-A-Sketch until you hear what you want to hear.

This man is most likely going to be the Republican nominee for President. He is bland, out of touch, uninspiring, and lies more than any man I've ever seen in politics. If you don't like what he has to say, like a train, a new position will come down the tracks shortly. He is a political amoeba, with no spine, or ideological core. This Etch-A-Sketch comment is going to stick to him like flypaper, and the more he fights to free himself, the worse it will be. For a candidate that has 65% of his own party wanting to press the "Reset Button" on him, this was a major blunder. Whatever political capital Mitt Romney had built up to this moment is now GONE, and that my friends is a big problem for Mitt Romney.

Republican War On Women Is Real

It is hard not to swing a cat in this country, and not hit some type of Republican legislation trying to limit women's abortion rights. The effort is both on the state, and federal level, but most of the moves have been made by Republican state legislatures nationwide. Lets look at some examples:


In Virginia, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell recently signed a law requiring women to get an ultra-sound prior to receiving an abortion. The procedure is forced on women, as well as, medically unnecessary. If you live over 100 miles from an abortion provider, you must wait 24 hours before the abortion can take place. The bill originally mandated an invasive trans-vaginal ultra-sound, but was removed after public pressure. Even Governor McDonell walked back his position on that part of the bill, mainly because of the perceived overreach by the Virginia legislature, and how it would reflect on him as a possible vice presidential nominee.

In Pennsylvania, Republican Gov. Tom Corbett endorsed that states ultra-sound abortion bill claiming that if women didn't want to see the state mandated procedure they could, "just... close your eyes." A Corbett spokesman said later his comments were taken out of context by liberals, "trying to make this into a political issue instead of stating fact." The same type of bills passed in Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Texas, are currently pending court challenges. Idaho is debating similar legislation, but is facing mounting pressure from women's groups, and my be dead, at least this year.

In Utah, Republican Gov. Gary Herbert signed a law extending the waiting period for women seeking an abortion from 24 hours, to 72 hours. This same law was adopted in South Dakota, but was struck down by the courts.

In Kansas, Republican Gov. Sam Brownback has said he will sign pending abortion legislation in his state. The bill would allow doctors to withhold information from their patients, and be safe from malpractice charges. It further says if the mother died during the abortion, because the doctor gave misinformation, that too was protected from legal action. Women would also be forced to listen to the heartbeat of the fetus. All tax deductions for providers, or tax credits for patients would be removed. Finally, women would be told abortions increase your risk of breast cancer, which is an out write lie, legalizing misleading and false information in the State of Kansas.

In Tennessee, Republican Gov. Bill Haslam is backing a move by state legislators to amend the state constitution on abortion, known as the Life Defense Act of 2012, or House Bill 3808. Doctors who perform abortions in Tennessee could see their names listed online, and women who undergo the procedures could be unintentionally identified under a bill pending in the state legislature. Demographic information on patients would include age, marital status, race, number of children they currently have, and their county of residence. It would also force doctors to have a hospital affiliation in order to perform abortions, clearly a move to stop the procedure in rural areas. “I think publicizing this information will do nothing but cause serious consequences,” said state Rep. Gary Odom, D-Nashville. “This is dangerous. This is a dangerous piece of legislation.”

In Arizona, Republican Governor Jan Brewer is supporting a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, raising the question of when the fetus feels pain, and would include the malpractice provisions found in the Kansas law. State Rep. Terri Proud (R-Tucson)reportedly wrote an email to a constituent saying that women should witness an abortion before having an abortion. Personally I'd like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a "surgical procedure". If it's not a life it shouldn't matter, if it doesn't harm a woman then she shouldn't care, and don't we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else. Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain - I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living - I will be voting YES."
In addition to the abortion ban, the Arizona Legislature is considering bills to defund Planned Parenthood, allow doctors to withhold information from patients to prevent abortions, and to allow employers to opt out of contraception coverage for religious reasons. The contraception bill also would allow employers to demand women provide reasons for why they are using birth control and allow for firing if it is for non medical reasons.

When you look at the staggering and inventive ways the Right is using to undermine abortion rights, and women's rights in general. It hard to believe they counter this argument by saying liberals just want to scare women? Really? Liberals aren't legislating fear, misinformation, lies, public humiliation, and intrusive medically unnecessary procedures. The facts are clear, and they can put whatever kind of spin they want on it. The war on women is real, and it's being championed by the Republican Party.

Romney Scores His First Solid Win In Illinois, While Father Rick Stays Off Message

As the Republican brawl for the nomination rolls on, it would seem Mitt Romney is beginning to pull away from the pack. After a big 12 point win in Illinois last night, doubts about HOW he's going to win the nomination, are slowly giving way to WHEN. Romney continues to pile up the delegates. In Puerto Rico last Sunday, he took all of the territories 20 delegates. Although it's not real hard when Rick Santorum goes all the way down there to tell Puerto Ricans they need to speak English, hows that for a lead balloon? He got 8% of the vote, for an effort that was a true waste of his time, Romney went on to win with 83% of the vote.

Illinois teaches us a few things about Romney and Father Rick. Romney is more likely to win in traditionally moderate, general election blue states. While Santorum is more likely to win in hard core conservative red states. Where moderate, upper income, fiscal conservatives dominate, Romney does well. Where very conservative, low income, evangelical social conservative rule, Santorum wins. The problem once again, is we are traveling into a series of struggles that favor Santorum, proving yet another opportunity to steal Romney's thunder. The next Primary is this Saturday the 24th, in Louisiana, where Santorum holds a 13 point lead. To start the April contests on Tuesday the 3rd, we have Primaries in Maryland, The District of Columbia, and Wisconsin. Again in Wisconsin, Santorum leads by 18 points.

The problem for Santorum is that he's running out of time to close the gap. He can't get the 1144 he needs to win, but is he still in a position to deny the 1144 to Ronmney? It is still possible, but is becoming more elusive with each passing day. In April, the majority of the challenges will be in the northeast, which is Romney country, with the exception of the battle in Pennsylvania. April could just be the month that the math will prove too much for Father Rick to overcome. However, should he survive, May brings the contests back into his court, with 7 of the 8 encounters in the south, and mid west.

It should be noted that Santorum simply cannot lay off the hot button religious rhetoric which has made him famous. It is also clear his inability to maintain his focus on the economy, as opposed to social issues, is hurting him. He recently claimed he didn't care about the unemployment rate, that his campaign was about something bigger? Bad news for the millions still unemployed, who he has clearly given a back seat, when it comes to promoting his social conservative crusade.

Just to give you a taste of the kind of people I'm talking about, give a listen to Pastor Dennis Terry of Louisiana, who spoke before introducing Father Rick on the campaign trail. If you can stomach watching until the end, you'll see Rick Santorum just clapping away in support. So as you watch ask yourself, are these the kind of people I want running my country? These are the people Rick Santorum wants in the front seat, not the unemployed, not those focused on the economy. These people are the "something bigger" he's talking about. So when you count all the votes people have cast for Father Rick, think of Pastor Terry, and be afraid... be very afraid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgHR_jnFrvQ

New Drilling And Pipelines Will Not Solve High Gas Prices

The Republicans seem to think they have a hot issue with rising gasoline prices, and for the uninformed masses out there, they may be right. The fact is every time they cry "drill baby drill!", push for the Keystone Pipeline, rail for access to the vast tracts of government land that is just waiting to be tapped, putting us on a path toward energy independence, the promises of $2.50 a gallon gas, the pledge never to bow again to a Saudi King, or the President's ineffective energy policy, just remember its all a lot of crap!


Of the 91.5 Million acres of land, on and offshore, currently leased for crude oil and gas production by Big Oil in this country, 68 Million acres of that land is currently NOT PRODUCING. Well most people would think, that doesn't make any sense? Ah, but if you're Big Oil, it makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't they utilize all this product rich territory? Because it would flood the market, and gas and oil prices would tumble. The Oil Industry, for decades now, loves to make everybody think the next energy crisis is right around the corner, or they tout huge reserves just waiting to be tapped, but government regulations are holding up the works. It is all smoke and mirrors, perpetuated by a Republican party it holds in its back pocket. Big Oil doesn't care if you pay 4,5,6 dollars a gallon for gasoline, because it makes them rich. Add a President that wants to take away their government subsides because oil giants like Exxon-Mobil made over 23 Billion dollars just last quarter. In an election year, or any year for that fact, who gets blamed for high gas prices? It's not the oil companies, it,s the President. If your an oil company dealing with a hostile President, what better way to hurt him, and the economy than rising gasoline prices. Add all the geo-political turmoil in the Middle East, and you have the perfect recipe to hurt the one man who doesn't have your interests at heart.

Ten days ago a House subcommittee held a hearing on "The American Energy Initiative" Wednesday morning that focused solely on rising pump prices. Seventy members of Congress signed a letter this week to regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), urging immediate action on oil speculation by enacting "strong position limits" and to "utilize all authorities available to…make sure that the price of oil and gasoline reflects the fundamentals of supply and demand."

The CFTC was given authority in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to impose position caps on oil traders beginning in January 2011. These limits have not yet been implemented by the CFTC. In an interview Wednesday with The Daily Ticker, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) says the CFTC doesn't "have the will" to enact these limits and "needs to obey the law."

"What we need to do is…limit the amount of oil any one company can control on the oil futures market," says Sanders, who has long advocated limits on speculation. "The function of these speculators is not to use oil but to make profits from speculation, drive prices up and sell."
This is not the first time oil speculators have been blamed for higher energy prices. In 2008 U.S. oil prices skyrocketed to $145 per barrel and gasoline prices averaged well above $4 per gallon. There were calls to increase domestic offshore drilling and legislation was proposed that would have required buyers of oil to physically own and store the oil barrels. Then the 2008 financial crisis hit causing oil and gasoline prices to plummet.

Blaming the speculators may seem like scapegoating to some (namely, oil traders) but speculators control more than 80 percent of the energy futures market, up from 30 percent a decade ago, and there is mounting evidence that speculation contributes to higher prices:
•At a Senate hearing last June, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, said speculation was driving up the price of a barrel of oil by as much as 40 percent.
•A study conducted by the nonpartisan consumer advocacy group Consumer Federation of America found that speculation caused the average American household to spend an additional $600 on gasoline expenditures in 2011. Moreover, the report concluded that excessive speculation (which the organization estimated added about $30 per barrel to the cost of oil in 2011) drained the U.S. economy of more than $200 billion in consumer spending in 2011.
•The St. Louis Federal Reserve has also recommended that the CFTC do more to prevent oil speculators from driving up the price of oil. Fed officials studied the effect of oil traders on the price oil over five years and determined that "speculation contributed to around 15 percent to oil prices increases."
•CFTC Chair Gary Gensler declared last year that "huge inflows of speculative money create a self-fulfilling prophecy that drives up commodity prices." Rising gasoline prices are a huge pocketbook issue for many Americans, a reason that stands alone for politicians to focus on the role of speculators.



My Thanks to Morgan Korn at Yahoo Finance for the information regarding the CFTC and Wall Street Speculation. - MJP Bluefieldstars.

What Is Mitt Romney Selling?

Former Governor Mitt Romney is the presumed front runner for the Republican nomination, but what are his plans for America? You would do better to find out all the things he believes President Obama has done wrong, rather than find his vision for what he would bring to the White House. Whatever that vision may be, it goes without saying his personal appeal is pivotal to explaining that vision.

So first, lets look at Romney the man. He has a net worth of 250 Million dollars. He has 5 homes scattered across the country. He is a Mormon, or if you prefer, member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, many media people refer to this as (LDS). Half way through the primary season, he has spent 30 Million dollars on negative campaign ads attacking his opponents, with mixed results. He has outspent his rivals on a massive scale, proving his money can't buy him love. He has a major problem in the south, and among evangelical social conservatives in general. The 2 groups where he has consistently done well are, those who make over 100 Thousand dollars a year, and moderates who do not agree with the Tea Party. He is backed by the Republican establishment, and known in most circles as a fiscal conservative. He has a daunting reputation as a flip flopper, who often takes the position that is politically expedient for the moment.

Personally, he is uncharismatic, almost robotic on the public stage. He gives the impression that his messages are forced, which makes him come off as uncomfortable in his own skin. He is probably one of the worst panderers I have ever seen on the campaign trail. Try as he might, he has failed to connect with regular working class people. For example, you ask him about NASCAR or professional football, and he'll tell you he knows some owners. He makes no apology for his wealth, but hopelessly emphasizes it every time he opens his mouth. He is a 1% candidate, desperate to appeal to the other 99%, and is failing miserably.

So what does HE stand for? Well the major things I found were this. Repeal Obamacare, or as it's known in Washington, The Affordable Health Care Act of 2010. This would allow insurance companies to drop you if you reach a predetermined monetary limit, like a million dollars. It would allow insurance companies to deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions. He would prevent children up to 26 years of age from staying on their parents insurance. He would prevent seniors from getting assistance with their prescription drugs, in what is know as the donut hole. This is just to name a few. Next, cut taxes on the rich, and raise them on the poor.


Third, he would increase defense spending. We currently outspend the next closest 9 nations and then some, COMBINED. See the chart below to see where we rank in the world in defense spending.


So if you cut taxes on the rich, and increase defense spending, want to balance the budget and cut the deficit, where is the money going to come from? Well, he endorses the Ryan plan, which would end Medicare and Social Security as we know it. He also favors overturning Dodd-Frank. This is the bill designed to prevent another Wall Street meltdown. So to sum up, tax breaks for the rich, no regulation for Wall Street, Scrap Health Care reform, destroy Medicare and Social Security. WHERE DO I SIGN! Add in the Republican wars on women's rights and voting rights, and you have quite a platform there. Do they live in 2012, or 1912? In any event, watching Romney struggle to be the standard bearer for all this good news borders on the insane. This is what they're fighting to bring to America in 2012? It's like crashing your car before the race. Sadly, there are a lot of people who embrace this message even if it runs contrary to their own personal interests, but after all that is what Republicans do best, that and trying to scare the crap out of you. Republicans always have a boogie man just around the corner, but don't look for him, he's not there.

No Southern Comfort For Romney

Last nights 2 primary fights in the heart of Dixie, once again emphasized Romney's weakness with social conservatives. In Mississippi, where 80% of Republican voters identified themselves as evangelicals, and Alabama, where 74% did the same, in this true test of the bumpkin belt electorate, it was Rick Santorum who emerged as the victor in both contests. Once again pulling out the wins, despite being outspent by Romney's big money machine. In keeping with his streak of island victories, Romney did win the caucuses in Hawaii and American Samoa.


So Father Rick's crusade toward the presidential nomination continues, as he refuses to go quietly into that good night. As for Newt Gingrich, who declared these 2 states as "must wins", his ego once again will not allow him to see the big picture. While his "southern strategy" imploded last night, Gingrich again vowed to fight on. I think despite his great appeal in the south, people there are beginning to realize he simply can't win, no matter how HE spins it. However, while taking very close silvers in both contests last night, he most likely will fade into the ranks of the marginal candidate, only to cultivate 3rd place finishes from here on out. He can continue his delusion of grandeur all he wants, the fact is the final nail went in his coffin last night. Despite his refusal to leave the race, look for Santorum to pick up a bigger slice of what would normally go to Gingrich. A scenario that looks like, for the moment, is going to be the best Santorum can manage in turning this into a 2 man race.

The next state, Missouri will hold its caucus Saturday. Actual delegates will be awarded this time, after February's "beauty contest", I see no reason for the state not to remain in Father Rick's column. Next will be Puerto Rico on Sunday, followed closely by Illinois on Tuesday March 20th. Like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio before it, this is another must win for the "front runner" Romney. Latest polling has Romney with only a 4 point lead, which with a week to go, should give little comfort to the former Massachusetts Governor.

For those of us who follow politics, this is a political junkies wet dream. If only Gingrich would get out of the way, and let Santorum and Romney go head to head. In a 2 man race, Mitt Romney would have a serious problem on his hands, and he knows it. As hard as he tries to push Santorum out of the picture, like a bad dream, with no money, he keeps winning. The fact of the matter is, the evangelical social conservative base is not going to just settle this primary season. If Romney is going to be the inevitable nominee, social conservatives are going to make him pay for every delegate he needs to capture that prize. They don't like him, he doesn't connect with them, and if the establishment is going to try and force a moderate like Romney down their throats, they're going to make him pay for it. End result, a bloodied nominee in Tampa, and more fodder for the President come the general election. The longer this fight goes on, the worse it is for Romney, and I don't see him being able to put this away anytime soon. So the struggle continues, and it the words of Montgomery Burns all I can say is "Excellent".

Enough Already In Afghanistan

I wanted to take a break from election politics to weigh in on the recent turmoil in Afghanistan. Yesterday, at about 3am local time, an unidentified 38 year old United States Marine, walked about a mile to the nearest Afghan town, and killed 16 people. Among the total were 9 children, and 3 women. The marine knocked on door after door at three houses, and then methodically killed the inhabitants of each home. When he was finished, he walked back to his base and went back to business as usual. The marine a staff sergeant based in Fort Lewis Washington State, has 2 children of his own. He had previously served 3 tours in Iraq, this was his first tour in Afghanistan. It is believed this marine may have been suffering from (PTSD) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.


A week earlier, 6 U.S. Marines were killed by rioting across Afghanistan, when U.S. forces mistakenly burned Korans. Four of those marines were killed by Afghan Security Forces, the same forces we are supposed to be training. The rioting was sparked by the Taliban, who is still very much alive and well in the country. As for this latest incident they claimed, it would "take revenge from the invaders and the savage murderers for every single martyr." further calling our troops, "sick-minded American savages". Afghan President Hamid Karzai called it "an assassination, one that cannot be forgiven." This from a government leader who has been proven illegitimate, mentally unstable, and, plagued by corruption on a massive scale.

So my next question is, What are we still doing here? The country is no better than it was 10 years ago when we started this war. While meeting with initial successes early in the campaign, the years that followed have proved to be nothing but a giant quagmire. Can someone tell me what we are trying to accomplish here? To add insult to injury we now have cries from the Right, to engage in wars in Syria and Iran. Haven't we learned anything from 10 years and 2 wars? We have troops who have been put on multiple deployments in the region, like the staff sergeant in question, and our forces are quite literally burning out. Things like PTSD and suicides, are rampant in both active, and inactive troops. So again I ask, what are we trying to accomplish there?, and the bigger question, what have we won for our 400 Billion dollars and counting, besides the 17,000 brave servicemen and women that have been killed or wounded?

We prop up a corrupt government, have paid the ultimate sacrifice in both blood and treasure, and our people are now being killed by the very forces we are training to take over the country when we leave. The Taliban has had a resurgence in not only Afghanistan, but Pakistan, yet we remain? How many more of our brave armed forces do we have to lose? How many more staff sergeants have to snap? How many more billions of dollars must we spend? All questions no one has the answers to, but I think it's time, we at the very least, need to start asking the questions, don't you?

Can Mitt Romney Win In The South? ...Maybe

Well aside from the handful of delegates to be decided today in the American territories of the Northern Marianas Islands, the Virgin Islands, and Guam, most eyes will be on the caucus in the sunflower state of Kansas. It is widely expected that Rick Santorum will win big here. There are 40 delegates up for grabs in Kansas, and 27 delegates in the 3 territorial contests combined, 9 delegates each. The next series of contests are this coming Tuesday March 13th. They will include caucuses in the Territory of American Samoa with 9 delegates, and Hawaii, with 20 delegates, also the primaries in Alabama, with 50 delegates, and Mississippi, with 40 delegates.

The primaries in Alabama and Mississippi, are thought to be fights between Father Rick and Newt Gingrich. Gingrich in particular has said both states are must wins for him to continue. However, the latest polling I have, puts both states very much in question.




IN ALABAMA:

Gingrich: 31%
Romney: 30%
Santorum: 29%
Paul 8%




IN MISSISSIPPI:

Romney: 35%
Gingrich 31%
Santorum 26%
Paul 7%

In what were suppose to be easy pickings for the social conservatives, Romney is in a statistical dead heat in both of these southern states. In 2008, Huckabee won Alabama, but McCain won Mississippi. So is it possible Romney can stake some wins in the bumpkin belt? Maybe. In spite of himself, Romney has struggled to end this rather damaging and contentious primary fight. He needed to win in Florida, and did. He needed to win in Michigan, and did. He needed to win in Ohio, and did, but still he can't shut down the process. If he wins just one of these states,(and my money is on Mississippi), he will have passed every test put to him. If he wins in the south, while Santorum and Gingrich may linger, the shows over. The problem is he will become the Republican nominee, without the support of the Republican base. Jimmy Carter did the same thing in 1976, with the Democrats. However, it is an incredibly difficult position to operate in, and Romney's fiscal conservative message, will have a hard time finding a home in the party's current social conservative firestorm. The thing he's betting on is that once nominated, he will end up getting the social conservative voters anyway, if for no other reason, than their hate of Obama. A bet I would say is a pretty sad, but fair assumption.