Mitt Romney International Man Of Mystery

I'm not even sure where to begin here, but lets just say Mitt Romney has just introduced us to one more reason NOT to vote for him. In the past two days several of our embassies in the middle east have come under attack. The most notable in Cairo Egypt, and Benghazi Libya where our embassy was burned, and we lost four foreign service workers, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. Today our embassy in Yemen came under attack, and protests continued in Egypt. In all, eleven middle eastern countries held protests of some kind. All sparked by an Internet video that was intensely offensive to Islam, and the Muslim world in general.

Now before all the facts were in, the brilliant team of neo-con political guru's in the Romney campaign saw an opportunity for some cheap political points, and attacked the President for sympathizing with the attackers, and apologizing for America. Neither of which is true, but what can we expect from a campaign that won't be "hindered by fact checkers"? So Romney makes the attack BEFORE the assault on the Libyan embassy, that killed our ambassador. Most rational people would say step back, cool your jets, but not Mitt Romney, there's not an apologetic bone in his pathetic body. So what does he do? While the nation morns the loss of our ambassador and his comrades who gave their lives in service to the country, he doubles down on his non-sense about apologizing for America. Even conservatives were wringing their hands at Romney's comments, with the exception of RNC chair Reince Priebus (who is a collosal ass hat anyway).

This is a man who thinks our most dangerous geo-political enemy is Russia? This summer he took a three nation tour of Great Britain, Israel, and Poland. He insulted the Brits two days before the London Olymipics were about to start, saying he didn't think they looked ready, insulted the Palestinians while trying to kiss Israel's ass, and stumbled through Poland, which by the end had him begging for terra firma in the good ole' US of A. The man is war monger, happy to start dropping bombs on anybody who doesn't like our values. Let me tell you something, we don't have that many bombs! He's quick to shove our armed services into another war, while having no concept of what that might entail? The man is a complete novice in foreign affairs, and his buddy Ryan is about as well schooled as he is on the subject. He even admits that in matters regarding the military, he would defer to the experts and the generals. He may think corporations are people, but America is no corporation. You can't outsource American foriegn policy, or delegate our military to some focus group? Do you really want Romney as our Commander-in Chief? Granted Obama didn't have any foreign policy experience, but Joe Biden brought twenty eight years of foreign policy experience with him. Its like a bad Dr. Seuss book, Thing 1 and Thing 2 trash the world in 80 days.

For a man whose strategy is to blame Obama, avoid specifics, and outright lie to the American people, it proves one thing, American isn't a one trick pony. He wants to concentrate on jobs and the economy because that's all he's got in his bag, as was so painfully demostrated this week. There are many facets to running the worlds only superpower, and when you have to constantly lie, and double down on absurd statements like the one he made this week, you start to reek of desperation; and that my friends is a smell that doesn't come out.

The Republican Right Is Just Wrong

It is no big surprise that I thought the Democratic National Convention was much better than their Republican counterparts, but then again most pundits seem to agree. It doesn't appear that the Romney-Ryan ticket got any bump from their convention, and it is unclear as yet if the Democrats have made any gains. So with the respective delegates back home, the final stretch has begun. The last real fights will come at the three Presidential, and one Vice Presidential debates all slated to begin in October.

So what kind of impressions were made by the two parties? The Republicans seemed stiff, not cohesive, and fell short on explaining a road map for the future. While Democrats also fell short on a vision of what comes next, they were better prepared, and the atmosphere in Charlotte was much lighter than the stoic pronouncements from Tampa.

Republicans tried real hard to paint a reactionary vision of America that really only exists in their own alternate universe. They clamor to project our military might in yet two more countries in the middle east, (Syria and Iran), while not acknowledging the sacrifices of the soldiers who have ended the war in Iraq, and are ending the war in Afghanistan. For a group who loves to wrap themselves in the flag as much as they do, I thought that was a disgrace. The nation is war weary, but they still want to pick a fight with every perceived threat on the block. Neither Romney or Ryan have served in the military, while Ryan touts he "voted to send people to war..." its a little different being one of the brave men and women who defend our country at the whim of his vote. American foreign policy isn't akin to a game of RISK where you push pieces of plastic around a map, Mr. Ryan votes and people die, and the same goes for Romney. Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with a group of hard core neo-cons that love to saber rattle, and beat their chests at every country in the world that looks at us crooked. I hardly think Romney's business experience, and Ryans war votes qualify them to tackle our foreign policy, especially when Mitt Romney thinks our biggest geo-political enemy is Russia? News Flash: The Cold War ended twenty years ago, maybe he's spent to much time looking at Russia from Sarah Palin's house?

Republicans talk about community, but its a gated community. They say if you just work hard enough you can be a member of the club, but they aren't taking any new members. Corporations are people, take responsibility for yourself, no matter what hand life has dealt you, show us your papers, there is a boogie man behind every tree who wants to kill babies, destroy the sanctity of your "real" marriage, take your home, your money, and your house. They want to take your gun, crush your religion, and steal your"Freedom". At the same time they want to take control of a woman's right to choose, while in the same breath warn us about death panels? They talk about legitimate rape, while giving Fourteenth Amendment rights to an embryo? Everything is something to be afraid of, and government tops the list. Why is government good when it lets you bring a gun into a bar? Why is government good when it forces women to undergo invasive and unnecessary procedures in order to get a legal abortion? Why is it good government to call America a christian nation, and force prayer in public schools, when the Constitution says otherwise? The Republican Party is a walking contradiction, filled with coded language they think only they can understand. It's like saying they are invisable, but everyone can see what they're doing. I will close para-phrasing from a book consevatives just love. Observe all the Republicans and be careful to do everything they tell you, but do not use their example as your guide, for they do not practice what they preach.

The Republican National Convention

Well they are finally striking the circus tents in Tampa, as the Republican Convention comes to a close. I would like to thank Hurricane Issac for making it one day shorter, (who says God doesn't like Democrats). I must admit it was painful to watch the three day Land of the Lost marathon, but let me take a stab at what I took away from this conservative meeting of the minds.

First, all their speakers were scheduled by a schizophrenic. If they wanted to muddle their messages they couldn't have done a better job. Tuesday Anne Romney wanted to tell us about love, followed by Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) who said screw love, it's about respect. Wednesday V.P. pick Paul Ryan (R-WI) took to the stage and bold faced lied to the country for 30 minutes, quite the auspicious start for his first big prime time speech. Then Mitt Romney tried to give us the warm fuzzes by trying to tell us he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but not before a bizarre attempt at improv by Clint Eastwood.

Generally a national party convention is used to prop up their choice for president in this case Mitt Romney, instead we got a long line of auditions for 2016. From Christie to Rubio and everyone in between, speaker after speaker told their own political stories, ending and by the way, vote for Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan. There was the usual pining about God, guns, and government, and a fairly noble attempt to humanize Romney for the electorate, but there is only so much lipstick you can put on a pig. A noticeable increase in the invocation of God, which made some speeches sound like they were at a revival, as opposed to a convention.

In a nutshell, they tried very hard to soften the sharp edges of what they really believe, but as far as independents are concerned, I honestly don't know if they swayed anyone from the middle. Of course when you have Lyin Ryan telling you what you want to hear, minus a little thing called FACTS, you never know. I have never heard a more blatant distortion of the truth in my life than what I listened to from Paul Ryan Wednesday night. Republicans always play fast and loose with the facts, but this was absolutely ridiculous, not to mention criminal in its execution.

The ongoing overriding theme of the convention "We Did Build That" was based on a quote from President Obama they took out of context. I suppose desperate times, need desperate measures. They beat our poor founding fathers to death. They were great men, but they've been dead for over 200 years, and when they formed our perfect union, slavery was legal, women's suffrage was a pipe dream, and only rich, white, land owners got to vote, can't you see the appeal? They want to strip women's rights, hamper voting with laws in search of a problem, and take us back to when wifey was chained to the stove, and minorities knew their place. Their slogan is "We Believe In America", but just what kind of America do they believe in? No place I want to live I can tell you.

Representative Todd Akin Is Symptomatic Of The New GOP

Well by now I'm sure many of you have heard about the incendiary comments made by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO). Mr. Akin is the Republican running to take the seat currently held by Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in the United States Senate. Akin, who on Sunday suggested that women who are "legitimately raped" cannot get pregnant, has battled off calls from within his own party to drop his bid for the Senate.

Vice Presidential pick Paul Ryan (R-WI) co-sponsored bills with Akin that would restrict federally-funded abortions, even for victims of rape and incest. Ryan stood by his vote in a T.V.interview, but declined to elaborate, saying simply "rape is rape". However, he himself made a distinction in the legislation he co-sponsored with Akin to categorize "forcible rape"? When pressed Ryan dodged the issue by again repeating "rape is rape." While Mitt Romney excludes abortion restrictions on cases of rape, incest, or when the health of other is at stake, Ryan does not. In fact, the Republican National Convention platform has a plank that embraces the Ryan view, and excludes rape and incest as legitimate reasons for an abortion. This plank persists despite the last three Republican Nominee's, George W. Bush, John McCain, and now Mitt Romney who have openly opposed it.

Some conservatives rallied around Akin. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins faulted GOP leaders for trying to quickly shove Akin aside. He called Akin’s comments “indefensible,” but noted that “when others have made mistakes, you haven’t seen the entire Republican establishment abandon him. I think it’s somewhat suspect.” Perkins compared Akin’s situation to that of former senator George Allen (R-Va.), who came under fire during his 2006 reelection campaign for calling an aide to his opponent “macaca,” but didn’t face immediate calls to drop out.

How do you justify one highly offensive remark, with another highly offensive remark? Well let me tell you, despite all the (in my humble opinion), false outrage by the Right against Rep. Akin lies a Republican base that sees absolutely nothing wrong with what Akin said. Oh it was mistake BUT, the comment was ugly BUT, It was regrettable BUT... But What? The man said some rape was legitimate! He apologised, it was a poor choice of words, and then goes on to tell people some women "use rape" as an "excuse" to get abortions. Really?

Stop for a minute. Should we be outraged because of what he said, continues to say, or his refusal to amend his radical Pro-Choice values? Or, should we accept the fact that this man simply said what he thinks, and believes in his heart to be true, despite its poisonous political overtones? For all their hard core indignation, the Republican party is now stuck with a man whose Pro-Choice religious convictions should portend his downfall, but will it? This kind of scurrilous statement should be drawing all the fire it has gotten, but for hard core Republicans this was just a slip of the tongue. It is certainly not worthy of the man leaving his Senate race. Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate to appeal to these people, the legislative association between Ryan and Akin is simply icing on the cake. I spoke of Paul Ryan's poor record on womens rights a few days ago, if you have any doubt at all, you should see how much this emphasizes it.

This is the new face of the Republican Party. They boo uninsured people for not taking personal responsability for their health care, when they can barely make ends meet. They boo a gay soldier serving in Afghanistan who was putting his life on the line every day so they could voice their hate. They want to destroy the social safety net in this country, by telling lies and misrepresentations. They now want to give rape legitamacy in order to promote their radical views against abortion.They do all these things, AND THEY DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT. Well if you subcribe to their view of the world, you know who to vote for. However, if you don't, you need to stand up on November 6th and let these small minded fear mongers know that this is not the kind of America you want to live in.

Women's Rights, Another Negative For Ryan

It goes without saying that in the one short week Paul Ryan has become Romney's V.P. pick, he has become a lightning rod for all the radical views he brings to Romney's table. Turning Medicare into a voucher program, and pushing the privatization of Social Security, are just the tip of the Ryan iceberg. I thought it was particularly cowardly of Mr. Ryan, on his first trip to Florida, to take the stage while hiding behind his 78 year old mothers skirt. To add insult to injury, he did it while standing in front of a sign declaring "Protect and Strengthen Medicare". He stared straight faced at the large audience of seniors and proclaimed, “like a lot of Americans, when I think about Medicare, it’s not just a program. It’s not just a bunch of numbers. It’s what my mom relies on. It’s what my grandma had.” All the while promoting a budget proposal that would eviscerate the very program mom and grandma currently have, it really was something to see.

Medicare aside, Ryan is also no friend of women's rights. He has consistently called for ending federal funding to Planned Parenthood, and voted against a measure to allow women in the military to receive abortions in military hospitals. Ryan has earned a perfect rating from the National Right to Life Committee for his votes during his 14 years in Congress. The National Abortion Rights Action League tallied 59 votes that Ryan took on abortion-related bills. On each measure, he voted against abortion rights. "I'm as pro-life as a person gets," Ryan told The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, in 2010. Shortly after the formal announcement of Ryan's selection on Aug. 11, Obama's team tweeted that Ryan would ban abortions even in cases of rape and incest and had sponsored a bill that would outlaw some forms of birth control. The Democratic campaign emailed female supporters to stress Ryan's record on women's issues, including his vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill Obama signed when he took office.

So I guess if you are Missouri Republican Senate Candidate Representative Paul Akin, who claimed this weekend that "legitimate rape" victims seldom get pregnant. First I would ask for a definition of "legitimate rape"? but then I would be rest assured no matter what "kind" of rape it was, Romney's V.P. pick would be against an abortion in that case, and that of incest, or regardless of risks to the health of mother.  As the V.P. pick he has backtracked to Romney's view to outlaw all abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother the "official" stance of the Romney-Ryan campaign.

Ryan was also one of several dozen Republican co-sponsors last year of a bill called the Sanctity of Human Life Act. The measure, which never made it to the House floor, would give a fertilized egg the same legal rights as a person. Abortion rights groups say that would effectively outlaw all abortions, as well as some types of contraception and in-vitro fertilization. Efforts to implement such "personhood" laws at state levels have been rejected even in the most conservative settings. Plain and simple, women have no friend in the Romney-Ryan campaign. The sign below says it all.

Ryan Can't Dodge Medicare Stand

Well it's only 5 days later, and the Ryan Medicare Plan has come front and center. Trying to make a distinction from the Congressman's highly volatile proposals on the the entitlement, Romney is already attempting to put some distance between his "bold" choice for V.P. and his plans for America. One of the subtle things I noticed the day after the Ryan's pick, was on the podium where Romney was to give his speech was a sign proclaiming "The Romney Plan". Nobody knows what the hell that is, but we sure as shit know what Ryan stands for.

Republican political analysts are applauding Romney's "bold" choice while at the same time are proclaiming he just lost the White House. The Ryan pick has also put some fire back in the Congressional elections as well. In what was expected to be a hold on the House for Republicans, has now turned into a wide open nationwide contest. Democrats only need 25 seats to retake the House, and Ryan's political record already has some Republicans running for cover. Ads are already out from some Republicans distancing them from Ryan's attack on Medicare.

In a poor attempt at something akin to a preemptive strike, Both Romney and Ryan are screaming President Obama took $716 Billion dollars from Medicare to pay for Obama Care. What they don't tell you is Romney and Ryan keep that cut in their own budget. So they take that $716 Billion dollars as well. The difference is, Romney/Ryan take that money to create a voucher program that passes costs off onto individuals, while subsidising tax cuts for the rich. The Presidents plan takes that money out of Medicare Advantage programs that were costly and inefficient, and makes pharmacy and insurance companies pick up the slack by putting a ceiling on profits. So next time you hear Romney or Ryan talk about how Obama gutted Medicare with this $716 Billion dollar cut, know they are doing the same thing, only they once again protect the rich, while giving the shaft to the middle class.

As for Ryan's reputation as a fiscal hawk, his record proves otherwise. After 14 years in the House and over 9500 votes. Ryan toes the Republican line just like the rest of the party of "NO". Here are some examples:

1. He voted for the $700 Billion dollar bank bailout (TARP)
2. The Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan
3. The Bush Tax Cuts
4. The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
5. No Child Left Behind
6. The Transportation Bill that included the Bridge to Nowhere

What do all these proposals that passed have in common? THEY WERE ALL NOT PAID FOR! Over $5 Trillion dollars straight to the countries credit card. For those of you who listen to Romney and Ryan say how they are going to balance the budget? Guess what? It doesn't happen until 2040!

Oh, and just to clarify, yesterday Ryan admitted the tax loopholes so pivotal to creating revenue for their warped vision for the future will wait until AFTER the election. (Is it me or did I just say this in my last blog?) Brit Hume of Fox News asked Ryan to counter that charge. "What we're saying is get rid of special interest loopholes and deductions that are uniquely enjoyed by the wealthy to lower the tax rates for everybody," Ryan said. But lowering middle-class tax rates, if coupled with eliminating key deductions, could lead to an effective tax increase, the cornerstone of the analyses of Romney's tax plan. Hume pressed for specifics. "That is something that we think we should do in the light of day, through Congress," Ryan told Hume, promising to "have a process for tax reform so that we do this in the front of the public. So no, the point I'm trying to say is, we want feedback from Americans about what priorities in the tax code should be kept, and what special interest loopholes we want to get rid of.  "One of the "loopholes" that costs the IRS the most money is the mortgage interest deduction. Another relates to municipal bonds. Hume asked Ryan if either would be on the chopping block. Ryan refused to say.

Ryan has certainly been a "bold" choice. So bold his Medicare plan has now possibly put Pennsylvania, Florida, Iowa, and New Hampshire a bit closer to Obama's column. They have the most elderly voters in their states, and if history is any guide they don't like Ryan's Medicare plan. So three cheers for Romney's "bold" choice, here's to ten more just like it.

Yes Virginia There Is A Santa Clause, And His Name Is Paul Ryan

Well despite speculation that Mitt Romney was going to go dull white bread for his V.P. pick, enter Wisconsin's Representative from the states 1st Congressional District Paul Ryan. Ryan who is anything but, the safe, bland, choice many were waiting for, certainly qualifies as a bold move on Romney's part. However, when the dust settles from his initial roll-out, Paul Ryan is probably the most polarizing figure Mitt Romney could have chosen. As for me, I couldn't be happier with the pick, and I'm sure just as much champagne was flowing at the DNC, as was at the RNC yesterday. Romney's choice in Ryan draws a big fat red line in the sand for people to decide which way this country should to go. There is no gray area anymore, Romney's campaign wanted definition, well they just got it in spades!

So lets look at what Mitt Romney has just signed up for? Paul Ryan known for the "Ryan Budget", or what he affectionately calls the "Path to Prosperity" would promote the following:

1. Ryan's budget plan cuts $5.8 trillion over 10 years from projected federal spending and reduces the deficit by $4.4 trillion over the same period. Discretionary spending, which includes programs like food stamps, would see more than $900 trillion in reductions. The budget also calls for the repeal of President Obama's health care reform law, which the plan says would save billions in federal subsidies that will be given to lower-income people to buy insurance.
Translation: Coupled with Romney's call for more tax breaks for the rich, Romney/Ryan would balance the budget on the back of the middle class and working poor. Give health care back to the insurance companies, continue cuts in education, public employees, scientific research.

2. The most contentious part of Ryan's proposed budget is what he would do to change Medicare. Ryan's plan would eventually transform Medicare into defined payments that seniors can use to buy private insurance or a government plan on an insurance exchange. There would be no limits to the out-of-pocket costs seniors could have to pay in this program, but Ryan assumes that the increased competition between Medicare and private plans would bring down overall costs. The amount of money seniors get to buy their insurance can only grow at a slightly higher rate than GDP each year. (The Congressional Budget Office says this would save the government money, but also significantly increase the amount seniors will eventually have to pay for their own insurance.) The eligibility age would gradually rise to 67, from 65. Democrats say this transforms Medicare into a "voucher program" that may leave seniors with big prescription bills and other medical costs, and the Obama campaign is already using this proposal against Romney and Ryan. If Obama can convince seniors--a powerful voting bloc that turns out at the polls--that Ryan would worsen or weaken Medicare, it could mean bad news for their campaign.
Translation: Destroy Medicare as we know it, to finance more breaks for the rich.

3. Ryan would cut the top federal income tax rate for individuals and corporations to 25 percent from 35 percent. The budget says some tax breaks and loopholes would be eliminated to help offset the revenue loss from that move.
Translation: Cut government to a level that is unsustainable. At the current 35% rate we can't balance the budget? How do you cut more taxes on the rich, increase the military budget, and slash revenues another 10%? It is simply not possible. Plus Romney will not tell us what tax breaks and what loopholes will be eliminated? I guess it's a secret until AFTER the election.

4. Ryan would slash Medicaid, the insurance program for some low-income people, by $735 billion over ten years, and hand the program back to the states to administer with more freedom. The CBO writes that states would most likely have to "reduce payments to providers, curtail eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves than would be the case under current law."
Translation: Make the poor, poorer. Give an entitlement like Medicaid back to the states? They can't pay for the programs they administer now? Where is all this money going to come from? you can't keep cutting taxes, and decrease revenue, and think it will all balance out with discretionary spending cuts, its IMPOSSIBLE! How much more discretionary spending can be cut? Look at the problems states are having now? Look at all the municipalities that are going bankrupt because federal and state governments have been slashed to the bone. If they get their way, everyone will pay more, and everyone will get less. More for insurance and less coverage, more in local taxes, less for schools, and fire, and police, and teachers.

5. The budget spares Social Security and defense spending, which are left at current levels. Ryan's decision to back off Social Security is interesting, since he put forward proposals to privatize the program around the same time that President George W. Bush tried to sell the nation on a similar proposal.
Translation: The fact that Ryan even attempted to go here is a bad omen. There is no government entitlement he won't gut, to put your health, education, safety, environment, and public welfare in general, back in the hands of greedy corporations that put profit before people. The free market is mans best friend. Remember corporations are people!

The bottom line is this. You want more breaks for the rich? You want the banks to go back to business as usual? You want insurance companies running your health care? You want oil companies to rake in record profits, and still get government subsides? You want energy companies to administer our environmental policy? You want state and local governments to continue to struggle so we can subsidise the wealthy? If you answered yes to these questions, Romney and Ryan are for you. But know this, Paul Ryan isn't going to bring one single Independent to the Republican ticket. Ryan hasn't added one single person to the Republican rolls, who wasn't going to vote for Romney in the first place. So let them cheer Romney for his bold choice now, come November they can ask Ryan for a tissue to dry their eyes, when they get their asses handed to them.

Contrary To Popular Belief, God Is Not Republican

It never ceases to amaze me how the "Religious Right" in this country think they have God, or better yet, Jesus Christ on their side? If you fit "their" definition of a christian, the Lord is on your side. These same people believe the United States of America "is" a christian nation. They will quote history, and the Constitution to make you somehow believe we as Americans have lost our way? They go so far as to insist that "their" interpretation of history, demands like minded individuals band together to take back America from the secular powers that are undermining our very way of life.

As I recall, this nation was founded on religious freedom. The Puritans in New England, Quakers in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland, etc.... The Declaration of Independence declares the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right of all citizens to enjoy the blessings of freedom, and worship as they wish. As for the Constitution, the First Amendment very clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Seems pretty clear to me. This country was established with the idea that no religion shall be discriminated against, or one treated better than any other, and most importantly no one religion will be the standard religion of the United States.

Roughly five days ago, Christian Coalition founder Ralph Reed addressed an enthusiastic crowd of more than 6,000 people packed into Arlington's High Point Church in Texas, as a diverse group of prominent conservative leaders and activists called on Americans to return to God. Many speakers at the "Under God Indivisible" rally, were organized in conjunction with Glenn Beck's three-day "Restoring Love" event. (how's that for an oxymoron?) Reed said, "If we get down on our faces and our knees before Almighty God, and we beg of him, not because we're pointing fingers at anybody else, but because of what we have allowed to happen... then I believe in November God will have mercy on our land and we will have a Renaissance of the values that made this country great." The New York Times reports, he's founded a new group, the Faith & Freedom Coalition, and is finding an enthusiastic audience among Tea Partiers and ultraconservatives. Reed believes Obama is anti-religion, and has pledged the resources of Faith & Freedom in order to ensure the incumbent does not secure a second term.

James Robison, a co-host of the rally, also made it clear that he believes it's time for a change in the White House. Robison, who in the past has blamed Hollywood and the television show "Glee" for a decline in American family values, decried the "socialist redistribution mindset" and pro-gay marriage stance of the administration.  Joining Robison in his anti-gay marriage stand was Pentecostal bishop Harry Jackson of Maryland, who fired up the crowd with calls for a new rainbow coalition. "We need to steal back the rainbow," Jackson said at the event. "We can't let the gays have it. We're the rainbow coalition. We're the army of God... We're are going to take back America in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Reality Check: We are a Democracy, NOT a Theocracy. You know where they have theocracies? The Islamic middle east, to christian conservatives they are the devil incarnate. They simply want to impose "their" religion instead of Islam. Can somebody tell me what's the difference? Neither embrace freedom, particularly of religion, so what are they talking about? These coalitions are nothing of the kind, coalition of hypocrites maybe? Just because you use words like faith, love, and freedom, it only works if you subscribe to "their" interpretation of those words, or "their" TRUTH.

I don't have the temerity to say God is on my side, and judge others accordingly. The teachings of Jesus Christ in fact preach the exact opposite. Love your neighbor, do unto others as you would have then do unto you, God is Love. Some on the Right think love needs to be restored, but that can't be done you don't practice what you preach. I'll say it again God is Love, not a bigot, not a hater, and certainly not a Republican. Judge lest you be judged? This is one of the foundations of faith, not a political tool to work your will on those who dare to think otherwise. Don't quote me, but I don't think God or Jesus were affiliated with any one political party, and I certainly don't remember reading anywhere how they promote Capitalism over Socialism? To denigrate in this way the very message these people of Christ profess to promote, is hypocrisy in its highest form.

Conservative Indignation For A False Truth

You know I see, and occasionally get, e-mails from my friends and family on the Right with one constant overriding theme. It boils down to this, an intense anger that those who work, are subsidising those who don't, won't, or cannot. I also find it amusing that these people scream the loudest when a Democrat occupies the White House, especially a black one. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance, and Disabilities are not distinguished. They are for a group of people who play the system, don't want to work, won't work, don't deserve help, or otherwise should be left to their own demise according to the choices they have made in life. They have an "individual responsibility" to take care of themselves, without picking the pocket of people who work hard and pay their taxes.

Are there abuses in this system? yes. Is it as widespread as the Right would have you believe? maybe.  The question I raise is where is this same rabid indignation when the Pentagon pays $300 for a wrench? Or when Big Oil makes 25+ Billion dollars over a 3 month period, and still gets government subsidies? Or billions are wasted on defense contracts for weapons systems that don't work?  Massive tax cuts are sustained for the rich, while the middle class is dying. These abuses are just as wide spread, just as common, and just as substantially wasteful. The money for all these things comes from the same U.S. Treasury. So why are individuals in need singled out for the harshest treatment? and where is all this righteous indignation when a Republican is in the White House? These abuses are long standing, and know no political allegiance. Does that make them right? Of course not, but this is the system our government, both Democrats and Republicans, have created. You can't fight the rich, or the corporations, or the Military Industrial Complex, but the individual is ripe for consternation.

I'll bet you the majority of these screamers on the Right are people who are well off, and have forgotten what it's like to struggle to make ends meet, or never had that problem in their own individual life experience. They worked hard to be where they are, and don't want others threatening their prosperity. How is the waste of billions in defense contracts less offensive than the unemployed, disabled, or elderly that game the system? Surely not all of these people are frauds? At least some of these people are being helped, why is demonizing these people in need, such an attractive target? Think back to your own individual experience? Did someone help you at one point in your life to get you started? A parent, a friend, a relative? Did you come from the middle class, or upper middle class? If so, should those who did not enjoy the same advantages you had suffer because they were born poor, or a minority, or just into a cycle of poverty that they had no control over?

These people who incite such anger, do they fit a specific stereotype? Did you come to these preconceived notions on your own, or were you raised and taught these things? What is so special about your situation that gives you permission to judge these people? Now this really gets conservatives pissed because their opinions have been burned into their heads as facts. I see it every day, just look around for yourself, all driven by individual prejudice, stereotypes, and a notion of do they look or act a certain way? How do I know all this? Because I was raised just like this, with all the stereotypes, prejudice, and preconceived notions the Right cries about everyday. Even today I struggle sometimes with these same prejudices, but at least I recognize it, and am working to overcome it. I don't want praise for that, I want people who were raised like me to understand nobody knows any one persons individual experience, and nobody has the right to judge anybody else unless they have walked a mile in their shoes. Whatever your experience, you can't justify hate and bigotry no matter what you think, what you were taught, or what you believe. There is no passage in the Bible to protect it, no article in the Constitution to legitimize it, no way to make your OPINIONS the TRUTH.

End Of July Electoral Update

As July ends the electoral map has several changes, still with no toss-ups. Dark Red Romney has a lead above 5%, Pink Romney has a lead below 5%, Dark Blue Obama has a lead over 5%, Light Blue Obama has a lead below 5%. The changes this post are as follows:

Wisconsin has moved to +5% for Obama, as has Ohio, which is big! New Hampshire dropped to -5% for Obama. Missouri has moved to +5% for Romney. The leads in North Carolina and Florida are less than 1% respectively.

As always 270 is the magic number. I apologize, while some states solidified and one faded, the map remains unchanged. I had Virginia in Romney's column last time by mistake, corrected Obama's lead has increased as shown. This total is accurate.

Barack Obama                         Mitt Romney

332                                            206

 

Despite the withering barrage of negative ads by both sides, President Obama seems to be doing better than Romney on the ad front. However, Romney's latest tactics have been to cherry pick a certain sentence out of one of the President's speeches, and place it in an ad out of context. Very easy to do, but a lie non-the-less. Check it out below.

 

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#48361131

 

Regardless of what Mitt Romney tries to do, the fact is the electoral map is still strongly in the President's favor in the states that count.

 

Romney's main problem continues to be his lack of character, and the continued appearance he will do or say anything to become President. His trip overseas to bolster his foreign policy "ideals" started with a giant insult to Great Britain just hours before they were to begin hosting the 2012 London Olympic Games. He questioned the ability of London to pull off the games despite serious misgivings about security, and the people of London specifically. Way to begin an overseas trip, with insults and misgivings about your host. What did he think they wouldn't notice? Of course the British media struck back with ferocity, thus overshadowing the rest of his trip to England.

 

Then he was off to Israel to kiss some butt, and weave some homespun neo-conservative saber rattling over Iran, straight from the desk of John Bolton. Currently Romney's chief foreign policy advisor, and former U.N. Ambassador under George W. Bush. You know, if you want somebody who had stellar foreign policy George W. is my first choice. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and especially Bolton, never knew a war they didn't like. As things wind down in Afghanistan, I guess it's time to crank up the fear machine over Iran. God knows America isn't truly defending our freedom unless we're dropping bombs on someone somewhere.

 

In any event, Romney still has a lot of work to do, and just a little over 3 months to do it. His path is difficult, but not out of reach. His V.P. pick is said to be more boring than he is, if that's possible? ROMNEY - PET ROCK 2012.  The Conventions, and the debates, are going to seal this deal. The Republicans are up first in Tampa at the end of August, and they need to pull a rabbit out of the hat; but first they need to find a hat!

 

Stripped Financial Regulation And The Road To Ruin

What is commonly known today as the Glass-Steagall law is actually the Bank Act of 1933, containing the provision that erects a wall between the banking and securities businesses. Congressional hearings conducted in early 1933 seemed to show that the presumed leaders of American enterprise (the bankers and brokers) were guilty of disreputable and seemingly dishonest dealings and gross misuses of the public's trust. The Act established new approaches to financial regulation, particularly the institution of deposit insurance, and the legal separation of most aspects of commercial and investment banking. It was believed that bank involvement with securities was detrimental to the Federal Reserve system, contrary to the rules of good banking, and responsible for stock market speculation, the Crash of 1929, bank failures, and the Great Depression.

Curbing banks' ability to grow too large has been a common theme in legislation through the years. During the 1930s and 1940s, banks stuck to the basics of taking deposits and making loans. Congress didn't intervene again until 1956, when it enacted the Bank Holding Company Act to keep financial-services conglomerates from amassing too much power. That law created a barrier between banking and insurance in response to aggressive acquisitions, Congress thought it improper for banks to risk possible losses from underwriting insurance.

In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that banks were prohibited from offering a product that is similar to mutual funds. In an often quoted decision, the Court found that the Act was intended to prevent banks from endangering themselves, the banking system, and the public from unsafe and unsound practices and conflicts of interest.  Since 1985 the regulators have allowed banks to offer discount brokerage services through subsidiaries, and these more permissive rules have been upheld by the courts. Thus, more recent court decisions and regulatory agency rulings have tended to soften the 1971 Supreme Court's apparently strict interpretation of the Act's prohibitions.

Commercial bank affiliations forbid member banks from affiliating with a company 'engaged principally' in the 'issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution at wholesale or retail or through syndicate participation of stocks, bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities'. In June 1988 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling accepting the Federal Reserve Board's April 1987 approval for member banks to affiliate with companies underwriting commercial paper, municipal revenue bonds, and securities backed by mortgages and consumer debts, as long as the affiliate does not principally engage in those activities. 'Principally engaged' was defined by the Federal Reserve as activities contributing more than from 5 to 10 per cent of the affiliate's total revenue. In 1987, the DC Court of Appeals affirmed the Federal Reserve Board's 1985 ruling allowing a bank holding company to acquire a subsidiary that provided both brokerage services and investment advice to institutional customers. Alan Greenspan Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board testified to Congress in December 1987, that the Board supported a Glass-Steagall repeal.

The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted to remedy the speculative abuses that infected commercial banking prior to the collapse of the stock market and the financial panic of 1929-1933. Many banks, especially national banks, not only invested heavily in speculative securities but entered the business of investment banking in the traditional sense of the term by buying original issues for public resale. Apart from the special problems confined to affiliation three well-defined evils were found to flow from the combination of investment and commercial banking.

(1) Banks were investing their own assets in securities with consequent risk to commercial and savings deposits. The concern of Congress to block this evil is clearly stated in the report of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on an immediate forerunner of the Glass-Steagall Act.

(2) Unsound loans were made in order to shore up the price of securities or the financial position of companies in which a bank had invested its own assets.

(3) A commercial bank's financial interest in the ownership, price, or distribution of securities inevitably tempted bank officials to press their banking customers into investing in securities which the bank itself was under pressure to sell because of its own pecuniary stake in the transaction.

In 1999 the Glass–Steagall Act was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Then signed by President Bill Clinton, who publicly declared, "The Glass-Steagall Act is no longer relevant." The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (GLBA), as it came to be known, permitted “super-banks” to “re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s”, which were characterized as “lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way.

After less than 10 years, the American financial system had a massive meltdown in 2008. Highlighted by bank bailouts from the Federal Government, and the collapse of the housing market, perpetuated by the exact practices Glass-Steagall was passed to prevent. While President Clinton, (a Democrat) signed into law the ultimate demise of Glass-Steagall, every effort to weaken it since 1971 was initiated by Republicans. Deregulation began in the 1980's with President Reagan, and ultimately succeeded with (GLBA), in 1999.

After the bottom fell out in 2008, in an effort to stop further abuses by Wall Street, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was enacted. Passed as a response to the late-2000s recession, the Act brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression. It represents a significant change in the American financial regulatory environment affecting all Federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every aspect of the nation's financial services industry. And who do you think wants to gut this law, and let Wall Street go back to business as usual? Republicans. As long as fat cat investment bankers, and hedge fund managers, can rape and pillage the American people's hard earned savings, life is good. To add insult to injury after we bailed out the big banks they sat on the money, futher stagnating an already weak economy. They're sitting on $2 Trillion dollars, and refuse to lend it out, on the off chance efforts to gut Dodd-Frank prove successful. These modern day Wall Street robber barons ARE Mitt Romney's crowd, and their greed has us locked in a stagnant economy, and weak job creation. Blame Obama if you want, but this nightmare was a decade in the making, maybe more. The road ahead is rough, but letting Wall Street go back to business as usual is absolute madness.

Another Episode Of Michelle Bachmann's Cavalcade Of Crazy

Yesterday in classic Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) form, the Tea Party Caucus Chairman once again pushed the bounds of reality by sending an inquiry regarding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. She and four other House Republican co-conspirators, Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Tom Rooney (R-FL) and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), raised questions about Abedin, who is Secretary Clinton's deputy chief of staff. They sent a letter in June to the State Department's inspector general suggesting members of Abedin's family may have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, which the writers said may be seeking access to high levels of the U.S. government. Bachmann defended her actions Thursday on the talk show of conservative host Glenn Beck. (cant go wrong there!) "If my family members were associated with Hamas, a terrorist organization, that alone could be sufficient to disqualify me from getting a security clearance," Bachmann said, according to a transcript of her remarks. "So all we did is ask, did the federal government look into her family associations before she got a high level security clearance." There is no evidence connecting Abedin or her family to any terrorist organization.

In a rare moment of clarity, several Republicans took issue with the accusations by Bachmann and her associates. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), at a regular news briefing, said "accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous." He said he did not know Abedin, but "from everything I know of her, she has a sterling character."

Former Presidential Nominee, and Arizona Senator John McCain denounced the accusations from the Senate Floor. "Rarely do I come to the floor of this institution to discuss particular individuals," McCain said. "But I understand how painful and injurious it is when a person's character, reputation, and patriotism are attacked without concern for fact or fairness." He called Abedin "an intelligent, upstanding, hard-working, and loyal servant of our country and our government, who has devoted countless days of her life to advancing the ideals of the nation she loves and looking after its most precious interests." He went further calling the attack "sinister".

Edward Rollins, a prominent Republican strategist who worked on Bachmann's primary campaign. wrote that he was "fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts," (that's the understatement of the year!) but said "this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy level," a reference to the U.S. senator from Wisconsin who rose and then fell accusing government officials and others of being communists in the 1950s. "....Shame on you, Michele!" Rollins wrote, adding that she should apologize to Abedin, Clinton and "to the millions of hard working, loyal, Muslim Americans for your wild and unsubstantiated charges."

The lawmakers' June 13 letter, which they released publicly, asserted that the State Department had recently taken action "enormously favorable" to the Muslim Brotherhood and that its interests could pose a security risk for the United States. The letter cited a security study by an outside group alleging that three members' of Abedin's family, including her father who died two decades ago, and her mother and brother were linked to operatives or organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood. Abedin is married to former U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner of New York, who is Jewish.

A State Department spokesman said Clinton "very much values" Abedin's "wise counsel and support" and called the allegations preposterous. O.K. is it me? You have to wonder what gene pool the people who elect this moron are drawing from? Are there a series of insane asylums in Minnesota's 6th district? We're being infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood? You couldn't make this shit up if you tried? Here are five people in Congress who signed their names to this conspiratorial non-sense? I'm surprised Allen West (R-FL) didn't add his master list of Communists in the House. There are 78-81 of them you know. These people represent not only our government, but are no doubt elected by people just like them. What makes a person vote for someone who pontificates in this garbage?

On a positive note, my hats off to Republicans who would normally let this whack job slide for yet another one of her departures from reality. It provides optimism that the Right realizes this kind of crazy needs to be cut off at the knees. You can't come out with these kind of unfounded allegations, and not reap some kind of consequences. Maybe there is a limit to what the Right will do to score political points, one can only hope.

Mitt Romney Is A Cry Baby

This week Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney asked President Obama for an apology regarding the Presidents attacks on Romney's involvement at Bain Capital. Well it seems Mr. Romney can dish it out, but he can't take it. This man isn't running for dog catcher, he's running for President, and if he was a little more forth coming with the personal information about his finances, and dealings at Bain Capital, some of this firestorm might go away.  The problem is we won't, thus perpetuating the lingering questions, and posing the bigger question, what is he hiding?

What are the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Switzerland, Germany, Luxembourg, and Belgium? The latest members of NATO? Nope, these are all the places Mitt Romney likes to hide his money overseas. When asked, he'll tell you all the proper taxes have been paid and the accounts are legitimate. Now there is the world of the well off, and the world of the Mitt Romney well off, and in the world of the Mitt Romney well off, anyone will tell you that when your net worth is $250 million dollars you hide your money overseas to keep it from being taxed. When pressed on the issue, Romney will simply say he won't apologize for his success. For some that may be a legitimate argument, who wants to give the government money if they don't have to? After all, we all have the luxury of off-shore accounts, don't you?

However, the issue remains if everything is on the up and up with Romney, why won't he release his tax returns to clear the air? He wants an apology from the President for claiming he outsourced jobs when he was at Bain Capital, but then says he wasn't part of that aspect of the business from 1999 to 2001? Yet SEC documents list him as CEO and President of Bain during that same period? So which is it? Romney spokesman Ed Gillespie said he was effectively retired during that period, despite the records that prove to the contrary? Is it me, or does this whole thing smell a little suspect? Gillespie claims that the outsourcing of jobs is not unusual, and that President Obama's policies have helped contribute to jobs going overseas. There is only one small problem with this argument, President Obama wasn't President from 1999 to 2001, so what the hell is he talking about? When asked multiple times if Mitt Romney believes outsourcing is a legitimate business practice, he dodged and weaved like a chicken stuck on the highway, ultimately never answering the question.

If Mitt Romney is going to put all his eggs in the basket that says he was a master of private enterprise, then he should be subject to the scrutiny that particular strategy affords. When that raises questions about his personal finance, as well as, the financial acumen that he claims makes him uniquely qualified to be President, don't these questions deserve answers? Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley found himself in hot water for perhaps a little too much candor when he said Romney would do well to release more tax returns, as Democrats have demanded in recent weeks. “I think he ought to release everything. I believe in total transparency,” Bentley told reporters. “You know if you have things to hide, then you may be doing things wrong.”

Frankly, Mitt Romney's bumper stickers should read, "Mitt Romney - I don't wanna talk about it". If you want to concentrate on the economy fine, then address the issues raised by your decision. Don't cry I want an apology, the President doesn't play fair. If he can't handle a Presidential campaign, hows he going to run the country? I'm sure he was stomping his feet with indignation, when he carpet bombed his primary opponents into the ground.

All these issues would go away if he would just pony up, and lay everything on the table. However, he would rather allow the current tempest to continue, rather than reveal what he obviously thinks would be something much more damaging. The man is scared to death of what lies on these documents he refuses to release, especially if they pertain to the one area he claims to be his strength, making them all the more devastating.

Now Republicans say this is all a distraction from President Obama's record. Some could argue this, but at least he has a record to point at. Everything is a well kept secret with Mitt Romney, the media is in a constant battle to define this man who refuses to define himself. So when the President has success in in doing it for him, he cries foul! You can't have it both ways, I'm better than Barack Obama doesn't cut it, and if he's not more forthcoming about his past, and his plans for the future, he's in big trouble.

GOP: Hang It Up On Health Care Already

For the 33rd time since 2010, the Republican controlled House will once again vote to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, aka: Obama Care. Some would get the impression Republicans don't like the health care reform passed two years ago. Each time they make one of these fruitless, dead end gestures, now at 33 and counting, the real work needed for the American people like bills to create jobs, and stimulate the economy, sit on congressional desks collecting dust.

The bill passed with a super majority of congressional leaders elected by the American people in 2008, to implement the Presidents agenda. Despite this, Republican sour grapes have continued to be the focus of their war on this "bad law". Twenty six states challenged the law, and the Supreme Court ruled it "Constitutional", and yet the Right refuses to let it go. The latest battle cry now coming from Republican Governor's like Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Rick Perry (R-TX) who are claiming they won't implement the law. This is political showboating at it's finest, and has an even greater margin for failure given Republicans have no alternative to offer. I don't care who you are, when the people this law helps start suing for its implementation, all these Republican rebels will fold like a house of cards. This is what the bill does:

Rights & Protections

The Affordable Care Act puts you – not insurance companies – back in charge of your health care. The following rights and consumer protections are available through the health care law:

Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) and Uniform Glossary

Most health insurance plans and issuers must provide you with an easy-to-understand summary about a health plan’s benefits and coverage.

Consumer Assistance Program

State Consumer Assistance Programs help you file complaints and appeals, enroll in health coverage, and learn about your rights and responsibilities as a health care consumer.

Appealing Health Plan Decisions

You have the right to ask your plan to reconsider a denial of payment for services.

Preventive Care

You may be eligible to receive recommended preventive health services at no cost.

Patient’s Bill of Rights

The “Patient’s Bill of Rights” outlines consumer protections and gives you the knowledge you need to make informed choices about your health.

Children’s Pre-Existing Conditions

Insurance companies can no longer limit or deny benefits to children under age 19 due to a pre-existing health condition.

Doctor Choice & ER Access

You have the right to choose the doctor you want from your plan’s network or seek emergency care at a hospital outside of your health plan’s network.

Grandfathered Health Plans

You have the right to keep your “grandfathered” health plan if you were covered before the health care law was enacted. Grandfathered plans do not have to provide some of the rights and protections under the Affordable Care Act.

Curbing Insurance Cancellations

Insurance companies can no longer cancel your coverage just because you made an honest mistake on your application.

Insurance Choices

The Affordable Care Act gives you a variety of alternatives to the individual private insurance market. If you need health insurance, these programs may be available to you.

Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP)

If you have been rejected for insurance due to a health condition or disability, you may be eligible for coverage through the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan.

Young Adult Coverage

If you are under 26, you may be eligible for health insurance coverage under your parent’s plan.

Affordable Insurance Exchanges

Starting in 2014, you will be able to shop for insurance and compare health plans in new state-based Affordable Insurance Exchanges.

CO-OP Insurance Plans

Starting in 2014, you or your small business may be able to buy insurance from a new type of non-profit, consumer-run health insurer, called a Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP).

Insurance Costs

The Affordable Care Act provides you with new ways to hold insurance companies accountable and keep your costs down. These changes can help you get the most out of your health insurance.

Value for Your Premium Dollar

The health care law limits how much of your premium dollar your insurer can spend on things other than providing and improving the quality of your health care.

Lifetime and Annual Limits

Lifetime limits on most benefits are banned for all new health insurance plans. Annual limits on your health benefits are now restricted and will be phased out by 2014.

Flexible Spending Account Changes

If you have a flexible spending account, health savings account, or health reimbursement account, here are some important changes you should know about.

Rate Review

Rate Review helps protect families and small businesses from unreasonable rate increases. Insurance companies must now justify any rate increase of 10% or more.

65 or Older

The Affordable Care Act strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the “donut hole.” Learn how the health care law affects people age 65 or older.

Medicare Preventive Services

If you have Medicare, you are eligible for a number of cost-free preventive services.

Medicare Drug Discounts

Eligible seniors who are in the coverage gap known as the “donut hole” automatically receive a discount on prescription drugs in 2011 and beyond.

$250 “Donut Hole” Rebate (2010)

If you were in the prescription drug coverage gap in 2010, you may have qualified for a rebate.

Strengthening Medicare

The health care law cracks down on waste, fraud, and abuse while providing new protections for seniors.

Employers

Tax credits and new programs are now available to small businesses. Learn how the law helps make care more affordable for employers, employees, and early retirees:

Small Employer Tax Credits

Tax credits for small businesses and non-profits help you bring down the cost of providing insurance.

Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP)

If your company provides health insurance to retirees ages 55 to 64, it may be eligible for financial help through the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.

********************************************************************************
This is what ObamaCare DOES. Read it, learn it, tell your friends about it, and the 34th time the Republicans in Congress want to repeal it, ASK WHY? REPUBLICANS, you have lost the battle, and the war, MOVE ON!  Think about it, when they're not frothing at the mouth over this, what are they talking about? More breaks for the rich, less regulation, business as usual on Wall Street, turning Medicare into a voucher program, doing away with Social Security, Corporations are people! WHERE DO I SIGN!  This is not about taxes, or God forbid "Job Creators" aka: The Rich, its a step, not a perfect step, but a step toward making the fantasy that America has the greatest health care in the world, a little closer to reality.

Reflections On America

This past 4th of July I had some time to reflect on the state of America, and sadly was not surprised at what I found. On the Left, I find politicians who won't stand up for what they believe in, even after they get what they want. They are so inherently crippled by public opinion, that finding those willing to take a stand in what is right, is attuned to farmer herding cats. On the Right, we have a party captured by its extremes, who believe compromise means making the other side come to their point of view. They have disconnected from the people, to serve big money interests, both corporate and individual.

On Independence day we like to pat ourselves on the back, and tout how we are the greatest nation on earth. The Right would have you wrap yourself in the flag, embraced in the warm cocoon of our "freedom." The Left, embrace our diversity and perseverance despite ourselves. However, we do not have a monopoly on freedom, of the 208 some countries of the world about 180 of them have freedom. We also (particularly conservatives) think we have the exclusive blessings of God. God Bless America! You see it on bumper stickers, most high ranking politicians can't end a speech without saying it, but who said we have the exclusive blessings of the divine power? What makes us so special?

People Left and Right say we are the number one country in the world, but are we? were we ever? Yes, I think there was a time in history when we could say this with a straight face, but we have lost our way. In literacy, math, science, life expectancy, infant mortality, median household income, labor, exports, in none of these are we ranked #1, NONE. We are first in military spending. In fact we spend more than the next 26 countries combined, 25 of which are allies. Many say we have the best health care in the world, but many are screaming bloody murder against expanding coverage to most of our citizens. As long as we have people coming to line up for days to get into free health care clinics being offered all across this country, we cannot say we have the best health care, we just can't.

There was a time in the not so distant past, when we didn't sweat the small stuff. When civility wasn't just essential to governing, it was demanded. When we planted our flag on the moral high ground, not a cross. When we had wars on poverty, not the poor. When we dreamed big, built big things, were on the forefront of technology, and disease, and the universe. When intelligence was something we aspired too, not demeaned. A time when we weren't afraid of our own shadow.

If it is comforting for you to proclaim our greatness, by all means, it is the IN thing to do. However, in my estimation we have lost our way. Powerful, big money interests are increasingly eroding the "American Dream". The promise that no matter what your background, your success story is possible because of American exceptionalism. Only with our voice, our vote, can we rekindle all that we once were, and can be again. This task is ours to promote together, to shed the narrow ideologies that bring only gridlock, and find the common ground that both political parties once knew, but have abandoned. To work for the common welfare, and strive toward domestic tranquility. All we have to do is find the kind of people who aspire to this end. Unfortunately for all of us, they are few and far between, and that doesn't bode well for our future, and that of the United States of America.

Electoral Update And An Angry Right

The latest electoral map has a few changes, again with no toss-ups. Dark Red Romney has a lead above 5%, Pink Romney has a lead below 5%, Dark Blue Obama has a lead over 5%, Light Blue Obama has a lead below 5%.  The changes this post are Obama's lead in Michigan dropping below 5%, Arizona going above 5% for Romney, and Florida has gone from pink for Romney, to light blue for Obama.

The 270 mark remains the number to win. The updated map puts President Obama's lead a bit higher.

Barack Obama                    Mitt Romney

319                                       219

After a hard month for the President, Romney still can't seem to catch on and make any headway. If anything he has lost ground in the so called "battleground" states. His lack of specifics on ANYTHING has people scratching their head as to what exactly he stands for, except of course that he's not Barack Obama. His favorability rating remains low, and he continues to struggle in the states where it counts.

In the meantime, Republicans in general are seething at the recent Supreme Court ruling to uphold The Affordable Care Act of 2010. Cheif Justice Roberts in paricular has been singled out as a "traitor" and a "coward" from right wing nutjobs who thought they had Obamacare's demise in the bag. They have yet to outline details for replacement legislation, and even before the court's ruling, GOP officials said they had no plans to do so until after the election or perhaps 2013. Nor has Romney detailed what he would like to see included in a substitute law.

Here is a taste of what crazy sounds like after the ruling:

Sarah Palin: "Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn't a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies."
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY): “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional,”
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): likened upholding of the Affordable Care Act to the events of 9/11.
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): With Obamacare ruling, I feel like I just lost two great friends, America and John Roberts.”
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH):  "Todays ruling by the Supreme Court underscores the urgency of a full repeal of Obamacare."
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus: "Today's Supreme Court decision sets the stakes for the November election. Now, the only way to save the country from ObamaCare's budget-busting government takeover of health care is to elect a new president."
Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT): "I will continue to fight this assualt on individual liberty and limited government."
Rep. Allen West (R-FL): "... Today, individual sovereignty in America has been defeated."

Listen to these nut jobs, Freedom is dead? The ruling is equal to 9/11? I've lost my friend America? Individual liberty and soveriegnty have been defeated? We must act now to save the country? Are you kidding me? You would think the Supreme Court ripped up the Constitution and then went outside and burned it. The only way to avoid this national disaster is to elect Republicans! Did I miss something? I thought the Mayans said the world blows up in Decemeber, not November? There is a giant asteroid called Obamacare hurtling toward the United States and the only way to stop it is to elect the guy who came up with the idea in the first place? REALLY?

Look at the quotes above, are these the people you want running the government? “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so." Well yeah bumpkin it kinda does?! Next time the thought of voting Republican enters your mind, think of these quotes and ask yourself, "What am I on Crack!"