As I type this letter, I find myself disturbed by the ugliness of this election cycle. Not liberals vs conservatives
-I'm incredibly used to that- but, left vs left.
Allow me to elaborate.
I joined Twitter in March of 2009, after President Obama was elected. Were the primaries ugly? Probably but, I didn't
see it. What I saw was that the Democrats had come together, unified, to achieve an historic accomplishment: the election of the first black president. Everyone was excited. I
made a lot of friends.
In 2012, we were all in on re-electing President Obama and fighting back against the obvious racism and obstruction of the Right. Again, there was unity, and I made even more friends. It was a whole lot of kumbaya.
And
then, came 2016. The primaries gave Progressives a choice of two candidates; both of whom should be respected. Both of whom had spent decades devoted to public service. Both of whom would make for another historic achievement. Both of whom agreed on 90% of the issues.
One candidate won the Democratic nomination and the other one lost. In my state primary, I voted for the one that lost. Was I disappointed? Sure. But, I did not fret because I knew the other candidate was highly qualified. Was she perfect? No. She is human. But, the candidate I supported in the primary asked me to, now, throw my support behind the winner, as he was doing, and I did so with enthusiasm and without reservation. I assumed -naively, perhaps- that my fellow Lefties would do the same. We'd be on our way to victory, yet again; this time to elect our first female president!
Then, reality set in.
The acrimony and the
viciousness, the unwillingness of many of the people whose candidate had lost to accept the outcome of the primaries, the spreading of lies
and distortions about a candidate that we should all respect. The
freaking childishness of some people that I have followed for years. The insistence in making the outcome of one of the most important
elections of our collective lifetimes about the instant gratification of individual
desires instead of the needs and future of everyone in our entire country, including
our children, grandchildren and beyond.
Oh, the pouting. Oh, the wailing. Oh, the gnashing of teeth.
I have now been accused, by people I have followed for years, of having "impure morals," of being a "sell-out" and a "fake Progressive" because I have chosen to back the winning candidate and not engage in a tantrum-induced exit of the Democratic party as a show of protest over my primary candidate's loss. Because I refuse to waste my vote on an unqualified,
untested third party candidate that has zero chance of winning and will
do nothing but, pull much needed votes away from the only candidate that
actually has a chance of beating Donald Trump. Because I have chosen not to spend my time vilifying the "establishment" that brought us President Obama -one of the best presidents in history, in my opinion- and accuse the winning candidate of "rigging" the election and calling her hyperbolic names like "criminal," "evil," and worse.
Because I will not use my vote to punish America.
What's at stake is the
potential election of Donald Trump, a dangerous, lying, fascist,
narcissistic demagogue who mocks the
disabled, emboldens racists, vilifies immigrants, attacks gold star
families & POWs, degrades women,
invites foreign powers who wish to do us harm to engage in cyber
attacks against our country and interfere in our elections, who promises
to roll-back marriage equality and a woman's right to choose and more.
I have been informed, more than once, that if Trump is elected because of the #Demexit, as they're calling it, it won't be their fault; it will be mine for backing the "flawed candidate;" it will be the "establishment's fault" for not giving the candidate who got fewer primary votes the nomination. It will be America's fault for not being "pure" enough. Some have even suggested that if Trump gets elected, all the better, because he'll be so terrible for the country that we will all come crawling back to them - the "pure" Progressives - to be the saviors of us all. Some have even said they will give their vote to him because "it's what America deserves."
You know what? Fuck you. That isn't being a Progressive; that's being an anarchist.
But, it's your vote and your right. I get it.
If this was a normal election year, I might feel differently. If the GOP candidate was someone like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney or John McCain, I might agree that voting third party would be a great way to show dissatisfaction with the system. But, it's not. It's Donald Trump, and his election as POTUS will cause severe damage to our country and possibly the world in ways that could be felt for generations to come.
So, sadly, I have begun a difficult purge of the people I follow on Twitter; some whom I have followed for years. Why? Because I cannot have the ugliness and negativity in my feed. I will not spend my time reading posts that accuse me and those of us who have chosen to put the country over our personal preferences by working for the change we want within the system that exists of not being Progressive enough, of being corrupt liars & sellouts.
I choose to use my Twitter feed as a show of protest against your choice in the same way you have chosen to use your vote as a show of protest against mine. The only difference is that my protest won't potentially destroy our country.
July 31, 2016
May 29, 2015
A Rant About Rape on Television
I'm disturbed by the selective outrage regarding story lines involving
rape on TV series. Recently, many viewers were so "disgusted and fed up"
with the wedding night quasi-consensual sex involving a 'Game of
Thrones' character (while conveniently ignoring previous instances of
rough quasi-consensual sexual content on the show - this was apparently
"the last straw" according to them) that they publicly cried they would
stop watching the series; this group includes Senator Claire
McCaskill. The outcry to stop rape as what was called a "television
plot device" was heard in every corner of social media.
However, I have just finished watching 8 out of 15 episodes of season 1 of the Starz series 'Outlander' and the main character was almost raped twice and successfully raped once within those 8 episodes. Actual rape.
My question is: where is the outrage about that? Where is the social media outcry?
I am way behind in the season of 'Outlander'; the season finale is scheduled for tomorrow night so, it is long past due for that show if the usage of rape as a plot device was a real issue and not some bandwagon, manufactured, faux-feminist screeching to get noticed on social media.
If nothing else, the use of rape on television SHOULD get us talking about it. It SHOULD make us uncomfortable, even disgusted. It SHOULD shed light on the real issue...rape is about violence and control, not sex. If we refuse to see and talk about the terrible things that actually happen to (mostly) women in our world, if we, instead, simply sweep it away and pretend it doesn't exist because it makes us feel icky, nothing will ever change.
End of rant.
However, I have just finished watching 8 out of 15 episodes of season 1 of the Starz series 'Outlander' and the main character was almost raped twice and successfully raped once within those 8 episodes. Actual rape.
My question is: where is the outrage about that? Where is the social media outcry?
I am way behind in the season of 'Outlander'; the season finale is scheduled for tomorrow night so, it is long past due for that show if the usage of rape as a plot device was a real issue and not some bandwagon, manufactured, faux-feminist screeching to get noticed on social media.
If nothing else, the use of rape on television SHOULD get us talking about it. It SHOULD make us uncomfortable, even disgusted. It SHOULD shed light on the real issue...rape is about violence and control, not sex. If we refuse to see and talk about the terrible things that actually happen to (mostly) women in our world, if we, instead, simply sweep it away and pretend it doesn't exist because it makes us feel icky, nothing will ever change.
End of rant.
August 24, 2013
Washington D.C. in 1963
In 1963 the racially separate and unequal nation's capital more closely resembled a divided southern city than a showplace of democracy. Beyond the gleaming marble facades of Washington's public buildings sprawled slums as appalling as any in the nation. Within the shadow of the Capitol, more than 40 percent of the city's families lived below the poverty level in a ghetto of rat-infested rooming houses. No other American city exceeded the District of Columbia in rates of infant mortality, venereal disease, and arrests for prostitution and drugs.
And although, as the seat of the federal government, Washington could boast the highest per capita income of any American city, a large portion of its citizens subsisted on welfare. most African-Americans fortunate enough to have jobs in the city held low-paying government jobs or served as the waiters, cooks and maids for the whites in power. Many had no work at all.
It was to the Washington of stately white monuments that civil rights groups planned to march in 1963 to dramatize grass roots support for federal action against racial discrimination and segregation. To improve the chances of the civil-rights bill proposed by President Kennedy, they bypassed the drab streets of the ghetto and rallied on the Mall, the very symbol of American nationhood and democracy.
As the sun rose over Washington on August 28, radio news bulletins predicted that the crowd would fall short of the 100,000 expected. but throughout the morning, a seemingly endless caravan of cars, buses, trains. and planes brought in an estimated quarter-million pilgrims from every part of the country and abroad--powerful evidence of the new consensus in favor of a strong civil-rights act. More than 150,000 blacks mingled with some 75,000 whites on the grassy slopes surrounding the Washington Monument. In the spirit of a church outing, they shared picnic lunches, sang songs of the movement, and then surged toward the Lincoln Memorial, holding aloft banners proclaiming such messages as, "We seek the freedom in 1963 promised in 1863" and "A century-old debt to pay!" Massed along the banks of the reflecting pool, the crowd gloried in its immense size and reveled in the hours of speeches made by African-Americans deploring discrimination and whites confessing guilt over their belated commitment to racial justice.
Finally in the late afternoon, after the wilting Washington heat and humidity had turned their clothes soggy, after many on the fringes of the crowd had withdrawn to the shade of old elms and oaks, the huge assemblage stilled as Martin Luther King, Jr., stood at the lectern in the shadow of the Great Emancipator. In a husky voice, King described the oppression of blacks, promised to continue the struggle until they gained all their civil rights, and in rising tones told the world that African-Americans would never be satisfied as long as they remained victimized by ghettoization and powerlessness. "[We] will not be satisfied," King thundered, "until justice rolls down like the waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." As his followers shouted their approval, King put aside his text and, in the familiar cadence of the southern preacher he was, spoke of a broader vision.
"I have a dream," King chanted again and again (read the full transcript of King's "I Have a Dream" speech here) as the crowd roared amens in response, that someday, in the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and slave owners could sit together at the table of brotherhood...that even Mississippi could become an oasis maof freedom and justice...that boys and girls of both races in Alabama could join hands "and walk together as sisters and brothers"...where his four children could live in a nation where they'd be judge on the basis of their character and not the color of their skin...that freedom could ring throughout America...that "all God's children, black and white, Jew and Gentile, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of that old Negro spiritual 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we are free at last!' "
King's oratory on that muggy August afternoon in 1963 did not speed the slow progress of the civil-rights bill through Congress. It did not end racism or erase poverty and despair. It did not prevent the ghetto riots that lay ahead, or the racist backlash that would ultimately smother the civil-rights movement and destroy King himself. But, King had turned a political rally into a historic event. In one of the greatest speeches of history, he recalled America to the ideals of justice and inequality, proclaiming that the color of one's skin ought never be a burden or a liability in American life.
In five years, King would be dead, murdered by a white racist. But, today -50 years later- his dream lives on. It is the promise of America, a vial reminder of what the United States could still be.
And although, as the seat of the federal government, Washington could boast the highest per capita income of any American city, a large portion of its citizens subsisted on welfare. most African-Americans fortunate enough to have jobs in the city held low-paying government jobs or served as the waiters, cooks and maids for the whites in power. Many had no work at all.
It was to the Washington of stately white monuments that civil rights groups planned to march in 1963 to dramatize grass roots support for federal action against racial discrimination and segregation. To improve the chances of the civil-rights bill proposed by President Kennedy, they bypassed the drab streets of the ghetto and rallied on the Mall, the very symbol of American nationhood and democracy.
As the sun rose over Washington on August 28, radio news bulletins predicted that the crowd would fall short of the 100,000 expected. but throughout the morning, a seemingly endless caravan of cars, buses, trains. and planes brought in an estimated quarter-million pilgrims from every part of the country and abroad--powerful evidence of the new consensus in favor of a strong civil-rights act. More than 150,000 blacks mingled with some 75,000 whites on the grassy slopes surrounding the Washington Monument. In the spirit of a church outing, they shared picnic lunches, sang songs of the movement, and then surged toward the Lincoln Memorial, holding aloft banners proclaiming such messages as, "We seek the freedom in 1963 promised in 1863" and "A century-old debt to pay!" Massed along the banks of the reflecting pool, the crowd gloried in its immense size and reveled in the hours of speeches made by African-Americans deploring discrimination and whites confessing guilt over their belated commitment to racial justice.
Finally in the late afternoon, after the wilting Washington heat and humidity had turned their clothes soggy, after many on the fringes of the crowd had withdrawn to the shade of old elms and oaks, the huge assemblage stilled as Martin Luther King, Jr., stood at the lectern in the shadow of the Great Emancipator. In a husky voice, King described the oppression of blacks, promised to continue the struggle until they gained all their civil rights, and in rising tones told the world that African-Americans would never be satisfied as long as they remained victimized by ghettoization and powerlessness. "[We] will not be satisfied," King thundered, "until justice rolls down like the waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." As his followers shouted their approval, King put aside his text and, in the familiar cadence of the southern preacher he was, spoke of a broader vision.
"I have a dream," King chanted again and again (read the full transcript of King's "I Have a Dream" speech here) as the crowd roared amens in response, that someday, in the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and slave owners could sit together at the table of brotherhood...that even Mississippi could become an oasis maof freedom and justice...that boys and girls of both races in Alabama could join hands "and walk together as sisters and brothers"...where his four children could live in a nation where they'd be judge on the basis of their character and not the color of their skin...that freedom could ring throughout America...that "all God's children, black and white, Jew and Gentile, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of that old Negro spiritual 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we are free at last!' "
King's oratory on that muggy August afternoon in 1963 did not speed the slow progress of the civil-rights bill through Congress. It did not end racism or erase poverty and despair. It did not prevent the ghetto riots that lay ahead, or the racist backlash that would ultimately smother the civil-rights movement and destroy King himself. But, King had turned a political rally into a historic event. In one of the greatest speeches of history, he recalled America to the ideals of justice and inequality, proclaiming that the color of one's skin ought never be a burden or a liability in American life.
In five years, King would be dead, murdered by a white racist. But, today -50 years later- his dream lives on. It is the promise of America, a vial reminder of what the United States could still be.
June 19, 2013
I Tweeted Sarah Palin and the RW Lost It's Mind
I don't like Sarah Palin. That's no secret. In my opinion, she's an opportunistic, attention-whoring, propaganda-spreading grifter who uses her children as media props at every given opportunity; something she's been doing publicly since she became a VP candidate. She did it again, recently, when Bill Maher made a tasteless joke about her son, Trig.
I sent her an admittedly rudely worded tweet regarding my distaste for the practice, and the RW trolls went crazy flooding my feed with hate-filled, misspelling-riddled attacks about my "insensitivity" and "hate" for those with special needs. It doesn't matter that my tweet was clearly a comment about her parenting, not her child.
Now. Let's clear something up. Bill Maher is a comedian. It's his job to be a dick and say outrageous things that get people's panties in a bunch. It gets him media attention, higher ratings for his show and better ticket sales for his appearances. Bill Maher needs people like Sarah Palin or he has no material.
That being said, Sarah Palin needs Bill Maher. She might loathe what he says, but she welcomes the accompanying attention and support she gets after he says it, and she milks it for all it's worth. Otherwise, she would take the moral high ground by releasing a gracefully-worded statement to the press condemning his words and ignorance. Instead, Sarah takes to social media like a middle-schooler in a barrage of childish retaliatory tweets and Facebook posts.
Something her mindless droves of fans are happy to follow in turn.
I sent her an admittedly rudely worded tweet regarding my distaste for the practice, and the RW trolls went crazy flooding my feed with hate-filled, misspelling-riddled attacks about my "insensitivity" and "hate" for those with special needs. It doesn't matter that my tweet was clearly a comment about her parenting, not her child.
Now. Let's clear something up. Bill Maher is a comedian. It's his job to be a dick and say outrageous things that get people's panties in a bunch. It gets him media attention, higher ratings for his show and better ticket sales for his appearances. Bill Maher needs people like Sarah Palin or he has no material.
That being said, Sarah Palin needs Bill Maher. She might loathe what he says, but she welcomes the accompanying attention and support she gets after he says it, and she milks it for all it's worth. Otherwise, she would take the moral high ground by releasing a gracefully-worded statement to the press condemning his words and ignorance. Instead, Sarah takes to social media like a middle-schooler in a barrage of childish retaliatory tweets and Facebook posts.
Something her mindless droves of fans are happy to follow in turn.
June 17, 2013
A Thought on Patriotism
If a permanent peace of the world is ever to be achieved; if mankind is really to rise above the mediocre standards which it has been satisfied with for more than two thousand years; we must bring patriotism down off the pedestal from which some have placed it and humbly offer it as a foundation-stone for larger ideas - something to be built upon rather than an idol to be worshiped.
It is as a United States that we led the world in invention, in industry and in the council of freedom. We can have that again.
If the nation is to fully recover, thrive and reach beyond the circumscribed aims of mere patriotism, we had better get to work. Because it has, for too long, been an unworked-up theme awaiting the attention of idealists.
It is as a United States that we led the world in invention, in industry and in the council of freedom. We can have that again.
If the nation is to fully recover, thrive and reach beyond the circumscribed aims of mere patriotism, we had better get to work. Because it has, for too long, been an unworked-up theme awaiting the attention of idealists.
June 12, 2013
The Right-Wing Guide on How to Argue with Liberals on Twitter: 2013 Edition
Author's note: This guide has been updated for the faster, shinier albeit slightly more apathetic Right-Wing movement of 2013.Many patriots wonder how they can best serve their country. I have two words for you. Attack liberals. How do you find liberals to attack?
The easiest way is to piggy-back someone else's conversation. If you see another Right-Wing Patriot in a debate with a liberal, put yourself in their shoes; they're obviously struggling. Jump in, attack their opponent with a short, unrelated insult and, then quickly - jump away! You'll be helping a fellow conservative plus, you'll look cool!
- Whatever FOX says, you say. When in doubt, toss out a Drudge headline or quote any conservative talking head you watch or hear in any form of media. It doesn't matter who they are; they will all be saying the same thing.
- Incorporate the #fox, #tcot, #tlot or #ocra hashtag in every tweet, because by calling forth other Patriots to also attack your opponent, you'll never have to give a real answer for anything.
- If a liberal asks you to prove any claim you have made is a fact by providing a source for the info, always respond: "Do your own research!!" or "I'm not going to do your research for you." That way, you don't have to do any research.
- If you feel you must send them a source link, make sure you only offer links from Drudge, The Blaze or other right-wing blogs or op-ed pieces. It doesn't matter if you've read them.
- It is also helpful to have a ready list of links on-hand that are completely unrelated to the topic of discussion to flood your opponent's @replies with. Again, it doesn't matter if you've read them.
- If you're unsure about how to start a tweet, try "Why do liberals hate gay/black/poor people?" That should get your creative juices flowing.
- Whenever you mention Obama, make sure you cleverly alter his name into something insulting, such as the easy-to-remember 'Obummer'. Or if you really want to get the debate moving, just refer to him as 'the most radical President in American history'. The liberals will go crazy sending you all kinds of links with numbers and facts. Don't worry; no one expects you to read them.
- All of your tweets (whether you are in a debate or not) should contain at least one insulting name for liberals. Libtard is a favorite, but it is getting a bit less effective from constant overuse. I suggest the more modern twist, Libturd.
- Stay away from facts. Facts are only opinions reinforced by truth.
- If a Liberal has insulted you (especially using large, hard to understand words), don't panic. Simply tweet back their own words as though they were your own. That way, you don't actually have to come up with anything clever to say.
- Never answer a question. The best way to counter the left's expectation for meaningful dialogue is to ask them an unrelated question in return, such as "Why do you like to kill unborn babies?"
- Make sure each of your tweets is riddled with grammatical and spelling errors. After all, you wouldn't want anyone to be able to accuse you of being one of the "intellectual elite".
- Each of your tweets should include one of the RWNJ signature terms - commie, Marxist, socialist, or Nazi. You may use them interchangeably to keep things fresh. To keep up on the latest trend, trying using "Caliphate" or "sharia law".
- If you're a conservative male arguing with a liberal female, make sure you call her several misogynistic names to make sure she understand that you're a REAL man and then, tell her she's pretty or mention how great her ass looks. The ladies all enjoy compliments.
- Whenever a libturd (see how I slipped that in there?) presents you with facts, you will most likely be tempted to turn tail and retreat, but don't panic. Simply toss out any one of the many variations of this phrase: "That must be some good Kool-aid you're drinking." Be creative with it. Maybe ask them what flavor of Kool-aid it is. Advanced technique: Suggest a possible flavor for them but, make sure it's a liberal sounding one like Black Cherry or Piña-Pineapple. The important thing is to include the word "Kool-aid". I'm pretty sure Hannity said they pay the tea party every time we use it.
- If they happen to bring up GW Bush, tell them they need to stop living in the past. Then, tell them President Lincoln freed the slaves and make sure they know he was a Republican.
- Mention the most trendy new "scandal" word like Benghazi or PRISM. But, if you get flustered and forget what's hot right now you can always fall back on the old reliables: Obamacare, Soros or Alinsky.
- Be subtle with your racism. Insist you don't like the President because of his policies and then, RT a picture of him as a monkey. Then, when the liberals call you a racist, turn it around on them. Tell them at *they* are, in fact, the racists because they keep black people down by helping them. They will be left speechless.
- Sprinkle the terms "Patriot," "Constitution," "liberty" and "freedom" here and there to constantly remind others that you're a real American, even when you're not acting like one.
October 05, 2012
September 12, 2012
September 04, 2012
My Response to the Rhetoric of a Conservative Friend From High School
I was having a chat with an old high school friend on Facebook who is a Romney supporter, which I am obviously not. He posed this question to me:
Now, there was not enough room for me to say all that needed to be said in a Facebook reply so, I decided to answer him here.
Then, take it up with the ‘job
creators” who own the hotels. I guess that’s just the free market at work,
right? And perhaps your right-wing blogs or The Blaze…wherever you heard that,
forgot to mention that the exact same thing just happened in Tampa for the RNC.
Now, there was not enough room for me to say all that needed to be said in a Facebook reply so, I decided to answer him here.
1.
Unemployment is higher
Really? Obama was inaugurated
near the end of January, 2009 so; the first unemployment rate under his
Presidency was in February, 2009. It was 8.3%.
The newest numbers
released from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show the unemployment rate
currently at 8.4%.
Now, that number would be
significantly lower but, during the last four years, there have been major
differences in the number of public vs. private sector job growth.
Check out this chart (red is public sector employment, blue is
private sector employment):
In case you’re wondering, that spike in public sector employment
was due to the hiring of temporary census workers in 2010.
Who, you may ask, is responsible for the massive number of public
sector job losses? Why, states that are GOP-controlled.
There were 12 states in which Republicans came into power in
2010 – Alabama, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. There was no data
available for Mississippi but, the remaining 11 states were responsible for 40%
of the total state and local public sector job losses in 2011. Add to these
Texas, which because of its large size is responsible for 31% of the total at the
state and local level.
Taken together, these 12 red states drove over 70% of the total
losses. The rest of the states suffered much smaller losses or even slight
gains.
In other words, erosion of public sector employment isn’t a
problem affecting the entire country equally—it’s a problem in particular
states, thanks to very particular legislators.
2.
He has increased the Nations debt by
60%
I sure would like to
know where you’re getting your numbers because that’s absolutely incorrect. Let’s
compare the *actual* numbers, shall we?
Increase in the National Debt by President & percentage:
Reagan - 189%
Bush 1 - 55%
Clinton - 37%
Bush 2 - 86%
Obama – 35%
Federal spending under Obama, including his stimulus bill, is only
rising at a 1.4% annual pace – slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.
Reagan
(first term) - 8.7%
Reagan (second term) - 4.9%
Bush 1 - 5.4%
Clinton (first term) - 3.2%
Clinton (second term) - 3.9%
Bush 2 (first term) - 7.3%
Bush 2 (second term) - 8.1%
Obama - 1.4%
While it *is* true
that Obama has increased the debt, Bush 2 actually increased federal spending
by more than 2 times as much as Obama has.
Bush 2 inherited a
budget surplus (the first surplus in decades) from Clinton. Then, a recession
hit and he took the budget into deficit. Then, Bush 2 cut taxes, which grew the
deficit to $400 billion a year. Then, we had a booming economy between 2005 and
2008, which reduced the deficit to $200 billion a year. Then, we were hit with
a financial crisis, and the Bush deficit ballooned back to $400 billion a year.
President Obama took
over in early 2009, during the worst recession since the Great Depression. He
signed an $800 billion spending increase at the same time that GDP and tax
collections tanked. The combination of these two factors (a growth in spending
and a drop in revenue) exploded the deficit to $1.4 trillion. In 2010 and 2011,
the economy and tax collections improved slightly, and the deficit shrank to
$1.3 trillion a year.
In addition, the
increase in federal spending is not the only factor that has caused the
deficit. Another factor—equally, if not more, important--is the reduction in
government revenue (you know, tax receipts). That can be blamed on 2 things:
1. The Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue.
2. The weak economy, which reduced incomes of
the middle-class and poor and
capital gains upon which most federal taxes are based.
And since America is not a monarchy or dictatorship, and we have
3 equal branches of government, even you must admit that Congress plays a big
role in spending and debt creation.
3.
His foreign policy stinks
That’s an opinion, not
a fact, and I don’t care about your opinion.
4.
The average price of a gallon of gas
has almost doubled
I was unaware that the
President sets the gas prices. Please, tell me when he was awarded the authority
to do that.
I do not have the time
to explain how they are ACTUALLY set to you but, a simple Google search yields
the answer. And to make things simple, I have done the research work for you: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-consumption/gas-price.htm
5.
He has increased the gap between the
middle class
Between the middle class and what? The rich? The poor? The
elderly? The aardvarks? What?
6.
Consumer spending has decreased
along with personal savings
Actually, that would
make sense in a down economy because, as I previously explained, incomes of the
middle-class and poor have been reduced, and many of those households
have pulled equity from their homes and overloaded on debt to simply maintain
living standards. This has happened while
wealth has concentrated at the top 1%.
I can go on on on.
Feel free, because so
can I.
Oh and I think it's really sad when the DNC comes to town that all the local hotels kick the homeless out on the street to make room for all the LWingers.
Oh and I think it's really sad when the DNC comes to town that all the local hotels kick the homeless out on the street to make room for all the LWingers.
August 29, 2012
Executive Order 13489 seals off Obama's school and birth records? Nope.
There is a false rumor going around that Executive Order 13489 "seals
off all of Obama's records". Supposedly, this is how Obama can seal off
his school and birth records.
Here's the problem. That Executive Order only affects presidential records and by the definition in the executive order, records made prior to being elected president are NOT "presidential records". People who think that either haven't read the executive order or haven't read the statute it was amending or haven't done the proper statutory analysis. Here's what I offer as proof.
The executive order in question states that the archivist must give the incumbent president notice before disclosing presidential records and must consult with the administration before releasing the presidential records of former presidents. The executive order defines "presidential records" as those defined as such in the "Presidential Records Act". From that act:
(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term--
(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but
(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.
Presidential records must have been:
1) Created during the course of being president
2) Created by the president or his staff or advisers and
3) Created pursuant to official duties as president
So unless school records, birth certificates or other documents that people seem so interested in were created while Obama was president and created by him or his staff or advisers and pursuant to his official duties as president, then they aren't covered by this executive order.
Further even campaign records are not covered by this executive order. The Presidential Records Act defines campaign records under "personal records". See:
(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes--
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
So no. Obama did not "seal off his records via executive order". Even if we assume the worst, and that Obama wanted to hide his records in order to be "electable", that would at best fall under "personal records" and not "presidential records".
Finally, this executive order only applies to information under the control of the archivist. It doesn't apply to school records because they are not under the national archivist's control.
Here's the problem. That Executive Order only affects presidential records and by the definition in the executive order, records made prior to being elected president are NOT "presidential records". People who think that either haven't read the executive order or haven't read the statute it was amending or haven't done the proper statutory analysis. Here's what I offer as proof.
The executive order in question states that the archivist must give the incumbent president notice before disclosing presidential records and must consult with the administration before releasing the presidential records of former presidents. The executive order defines "presidential records" as those defined as such in the "Presidential Records Act". From that act:
(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term--
(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but
(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.
Presidential records must have been:
1) Created during the course of being president
2) Created by the president or his staff or advisers and
3) Created pursuant to official duties as president
So unless school records, birth certificates or other documents that people seem so interested in were created while Obama was president and created by him or his staff or advisers and pursuant to his official duties as president, then they aren't covered by this executive order.
Further even campaign records are not covered by this executive order. The Presidential Records Act defines campaign records under "personal records". See:
(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes--
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
So no. Obama did not "seal off his records via executive order". Even if we assume the worst, and that Obama wanted to hide his records in order to be "electable", that would at best fall under "personal records" and not "presidential records".
Finally, this executive order only applies to information under the control of the archivist. It doesn't apply to school records because they are not under the national archivist's control.
August 18, 2012
92 Actual FACTS about Paul Ryan
No rhetoric. Let's talk facts about Paul Ryan, shall we?
1. Ryan budget: 62% of its cuts are on programs that help the poor in order to pay for more tax breaks for the rich; PLUS it raises the deficit.
2. Paul Ryan wants to gut financial aid for college students, food stamps for hungry families, Medicaid, Medicare & Social Security.
3. Paul Ryan voted to preserve $40B in special subsidies for big oil, an industry in which he and his wife hold ownership stakes.
4. Paul Ryan secured millions in earmarks for his home state of WI, including, among other things, $3.3M for public projects.
5. Paul Ryan is heir to a private fortune made through public works projects paid for by taxpayer $$. They had help "building that."
6. Ryan sold shares in Wachovia, Citigroup, and JP Morgan and then, bought shares in Goldman Sachs on 9/18/08 - hrs after meeting with Paulson regarding financial bailout.
7. Paul Ryan opposed funding for public drinking water arsenic removal.
8. Paul Ryan voted against holding oil companies responsible for their oil spills.
9. Paul Ryan lobbied Federal officials to speed up approval of a donor's casino.
10. Ryan's campaign received illegal contributions from a Wisconsin trucking company & then supported legislation that directly benefited that company.
11. Ryan received a $6,000 Fed Fine for not disclosing donations in the 1998 election, including large sums from 12 special interest groups.
12. Paul Ryan voted against $20M to help prevent suicide by combat veterans.
13. Paul Ryan voted against protecting Veterans’ benefits from the Cut, Cap, and Balance cuts.
14. Paul Ryan voted to imposed a $250 fee for enrollment in VA health care and double the drug co-payment for Veterans.
15. Ryan voted against allowing Veterans w/ service-related disabilities & 20 yrs’ honorable service to receive full disability benefits & retirement pay.
16. In 2007, Paul Ryan voted against a $6.6B increase in funding for veterans' programs.
17. Bowhunter Paul Ryan voted for a $34B corporate tax bill to help US manufacturers of bowhunting equipment.
18. Paul Ryan voted to increase the deficit by $228B by extending the $1000 per Child Tax Credit to the wealthy.
19. Ryan voted for $143B in tax breaks for businesses that added $34B to the national debt and opposed the Dem version that prevented any debt increase.
20. Paul Ryan voted against tax breaks for 1st time home buyers.
21. Paul Ryan has voted time & time again to raid Social Security & Medicare surpluses for tax cuts. Now, he claims the programs are running out of money.
22. In 2003, Paul Ryan voted to add another $2.4 trillion to deficits and the national debt between 2003 and 2013.
23. Paul Ryan voted to “spend every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund” on risky tax cuts.
24. Paul Ryan voted against protecting Social Security & Medicare surpluses while delivering tax reductions to energy companies.
25. Paul Ryan voted to provide a budget busting tax cut for the wealthy by raiding Social Security.
26. Paul Ryan admits he has NO idea if Romney's supposed budget will reduce the deficit because they "haven't run the numbers." Um. Isn't that what a budget is? Numbers that have been run?
27. Paul Ryan voted against the repeal of DADT.
28. In 2007, Paul Ryan voted against providing $95.5B for troops in Iraq/Afghanistan.
29. Paul Ryan voted against imposing sanctions on foreign companies that sell arms to China.
30. Paul Ryan voted against ending the war in Afghanistan, but also voted against $31 billion needed for Afghanistan operations.
31. Paul Ryan voted to exempt blogs, e-mail, videos and other online speech from campaign finance rules.
32. Paul Ryan voted to keep the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing any new endangered species or habitats on the Endangered Species List.
33. Paul Ryan voted against designating more than 2 million acres as Protected Wilderness Areas.
34. In 2011, Ryan voted against a Combat-Pay increase for U.S. Troops.
35. Paul Ryan voted to approve drilling for oil in the ANWR but, then voted AGAINST keeping that oil in the U.S.
36. Paul Ryan voted against holding oil companies responsible for their oil spills.
37. Ryan voted for a sham refinery plan that did nothing to lower energy costs & hurt taxpayers, but DID improve the bottom line for oil companies.
38. Ryan voted to repeal a Depression-era law preventing consolidation of public utilities that protects consumers from utility monopolies.
39. Paul Ryan voted against the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, protecting citizens from price gouging businesses during an emergency.
40. Paul Ryan voted in favor of shipping nuclear fuel to India without India signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
41. Paul Ryan voted against Mining Safety Reform, and he is part owner of an Oklahoma mining business, Ava O Limited Co.
42. Paul Ryan supported waiving environmental regulation on commercial logging in America's National Forests.
43. Paul Ryan owns stock in Wells Fargo and Exxon Mobil.
44. Paul Ryan voted to give Federal land to a private company to allow development of a copper mine, & much of his wealth comes from mining.
45. Paul Ryan voted to weaken Air Pollution Permit Regulations in the Clean Air Act.
46. Paul Ryan voted to cut Title 1 funding for teachers by $693.5 mil & against enhancing school budgets to avoid teacher layoffs.
47. Paul Ryan voted to cut funds for the GEAR UP program, denying over 130,000 disadvantaged youth the help they need to get into college.
48. Ryan supported extreme cuts to education, including 100,000 new teachers, after-school programs & teacher quality/recruitment programs.
49. Paul Ryan voted to give India access to US nuclear technology.
50. Ryan's plan would increase prescription drug costs for seniors by reopening the Doughnut Hole in drug coverage that Obamacare closed.
51. Ryan's plan reduces Federal spending on each Medicare beneficiary by 35-42%, forcing them to cover the remaining costs out-of-pocket.
52. Ryan's plan raises the Medicare Retirement Age from 65 To 67, but repeals Obamacare, leaving 65 & 66 yr olds w/out any guarantee of care.
53. Ryan's plan would do away with Medicare’s direct payment for health care for seniors, replacing it with coupons for private insurers.
54. Paul Ryan voted against increasing lending and lowering taxes for small businesses.
55. Paul Ryan supported cutting student loan funding, social programs and agriculture funding but, prevented HMO cuts.
56. Paul Ryan voted against a $2,500 tax credit for college students.
57. Paul Ryan opposed increases for special education & teacher quality programs.
58. Paul Ryan defended Bush’s handling of the economy, saying Bush inherited a recession-bound economy and fought for job growth.
59. Paul Ryan voted against mandatory Rest and Recuperation for American troops in Iraq.
60. Paul Ryan voted against requiring gun show purchasers to undergo background checks then, voted to weaken background check standards.
61. Paul Ryan voted against restrictions on fed funded faith-based groups protecting against employment discrimination based on religion.
62. Paul Ryan voted against banning the slaughter of horses for meat.
63. Paul Ryan voted for a $175,000 study on whether to improve dental benefits for House members.
64. Paul Ryan voted against regulating Wall Street after the financial crisis.
65. During the Bush admin, Ryan voted for the $700mil bailout, yet in 2009(during Obama's term), he voted to prevent the release of the 2nd half of that same bailout.
66. Paul Ryan voted in favor of $19.1 billion in interior spending, including more than $600 million in fossil fuel subsidies.
67. Paul Ryan voted against raising fuel economy standards.
68. Paul Ryan supported legal protection for restaurants that knowingly sold beef of “downed” cows - the ones that most likely have Mad Cow Disease.
69. Ryan opposed the Food Safety Modernization Act which increases the number of required inspections on & verifies the safety of imported food.
70. Paul Ryan lied and said he never requested stimulus funds...until the letters he wrote specifically requesting them surfaced.
71. Paul Ryan voted against giving $3.7 billion in agriculture disaster relief.
72. Paul Ryan opposed a ban on human cloning.
73. Paul Ryan did not oppose ANY spending measures during the yrs Republicans held full sway in Congress or the White House.
74. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Paul Ryan's budget cuts would result in 4.1 million jobs lost through just 2014.
75. Paul Ryan's plan would double the interest rate on student loans ensuring all Americans do not have an equal opportunity to succeed.
76. Paul Ryan's budget cuts SNAP (food stamp) benefits by $133 billion over 10 yrs and eviscerates Pell grants.
77. Paul Ryan's budget would cut funding for health care programs for low and middle-income individuals by more than 75% by 2050.
78. Paul Ryan would outlaw abortion, even for rape and incest or even to protect the life of the mother.
79. Paul Ryan voted for the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq war, and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, none of which were paid for.
80. Paul Ryan as never held statewide office and has no foreign-policy experience.
81. Paul Ryan supports allowing states to jail women who get, and doctors who perform, abortions.
82. Paul Ryan's budget would add $3.1 trillion to the deficit, more than would be added under current law.
83. Paul Ryan's budget cuts Medicaid by 45%, leaving 19mil people without health care.
84. Paul Ryan possesses only a Bachelors degree, which is fine but, that means his "expertise" in economics comes from a few undergrad courses and Ayn Rand fiction.
85. While destroying medicare, Ryan's budget plan offers huge subsidies and tax breaks for the oil and mining industries.
86. Ryan voted to cut funds for GEAR UP, denying 130,000+ disadvantaged youth the help they need to get into college.
87. Paul Ryan supported trillions of dollars of deficit spending under Bush and now rails against any government spending.
88. Paul Ryan's plan for America was inspired by and derived from the deranged mind of the serial-killer groupie Ayn Rand.
89. Defense Department: “Ryan Inc" has had 22+ defense contracts w/ the fed gov since '96, including 1 worth $5.6M in taxpayer $$.
90. Paul Ryan says, "Rape is just another form of conception" and believes in forcing women to carry and give birth to their rapist's children.
91. Ryan says he'll reduce the deficit, but his tax cuts for big corporations & the rich are so large, there aren't enough tax code loopholes to offset them.
92. Each Medicare beneficiary would be spending $6,359 more out-of-pocket under Ryan's plan.
Enough said.
1. Ryan budget: 62% of its cuts are on programs that help the poor in order to pay for more tax breaks for the rich; PLUS it raises the deficit.
2. Paul Ryan wants to gut financial aid for college students, food stamps for hungry families, Medicaid, Medicare & Social Security.
3. Paul Ryan voted to preserve $40B in special subsidies for big oil, an industry in which he and his wife hold ownership stakes.
4. Paul Ryan secured millions in earmarks for his home state of WI, including, among other things, $3.3M for public projects.
5. Paul Ryan is heir to a private fortune made through public works projects paid for by taxpayer $$. They had help "building that."
6. Ryan sold shares in Wachovia, Citigroup, and JP Morgan and then, bought shares in Goldman Sachs on 9/18/08 - hrs after meeting with Paulson regarding financial bailout.
7. Paul Ryan opposed funding for public drinking water arsenic removal.
8. Paul Ryan voted against holding oil companies responsible for their oil spills.
9. Paul Ryan lobbied Federal officials to speed up approval of a donor's casino.
10. Ryan's campaign received illegal contributions from a Wisconsin trucking company & then supported legislation that directly benefited that company.
11. Ryan received a $6,000 Fed Fine for not disclosing donations in the 1998 election, including large sums from 12 special interest groups.
12. Paul Ryan voted against $20M to help prevent suicide by combat veterans.
13. Paul Ryan voted against protecting Veterans’ benefits from the Cut, Cap, and Balance cuts.
14. Paul Ryan voted to imposed a $250 fee for enrollment in VA health care and double the drug co-payment for Veterans.
15. Ryan voted against allowing Veterans w/ service-related disabilities & 20 yrs’ honorable service to receive full disability benefits & retirement pay.
16. In 2007, Paul Ryan voted against a $6.6B increase in funding for veterans' programs.
17. Bowhunter Paul Ryan voted for a $34B corporate tax bill to help US manufacturers of bowhunting equipment.
18. Paul Ryan voted to increase the deficit by $228B by extending the $1000 per Child Tax Credit to the wealthy.
19. Ryan voted for $143B in tax breaks for businesses that added $34B to the national debt and opposed the Dem version that prevented any debt increase.
20. Paul Ryan voted against tax breaks for 1st time home buyers.
21. Paul Ryan has voted time & time again to raid Social Security & Medicare surpluses for tax cuts. Now, he claims the programs are running out of money.
22. In 2003, Paul Ryan voted to add another $2.4 trillion to deficits and the national debt between 2003 and 2013.
23. Paul Ryan voted to “spend every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund” on risky tax cuts.
24. Paul Ryan voted against protecting Social Security & Medicare surpluses while delivering tax reductions to energy companies.
25. Paul Ryan voted to provide a budget busting tax cut for the wealthy by raiding Social Security.
26. Paul Ryan admits he has NO idea if Romney's supposed budget will reduce the deficit because they "haven't run the numbers." Um. Isn't that what a budget is? Numbers that have been run?
27. Paul Ryan voted against the repeal of DADT.
28. In 2007, Paul Ryan voted against providing $95.5B for troops in Iraq/Afghanistan.
29. Paul Ryan voted against imposing sanctions on foreign companies that sell arms to China.
30. Paul Ryan voted against ending the war in Afghanistan, but also voted against $31 billion needed for Afghanistan operations.
31. Paul Ryan voted to exempt blogs, e-mail, videos and other online speech from campaign finance rules.
32. Paul Ryan voted to keep the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing any new endangered species or habitats on the Endangered Species List.
33. Paul Ryan voted against designating more than 2 million acres as Protected Wilderness Areas.
34. In 2011, Ryan voted against a Combat-Pay increase for U.S. Troops.
35. Paul Ryan voted to approve drilling for oil in the ANWR but, then voted AGAINST keeping that oil in the U.S.
36. Paul Ryan voted against holding oil companies responsible for their oil spills.
37. Ryan voted for a sham refinery plan that did nothing to lower energy costs & hurt taxpayers, but DID improve the bottom line for oil companies.
38. Ryan voted to repeal a Depression-era law preventing consolidation of public utilities that protects consumers from utility monopolies.
39. Paul Ryan voted against the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, protecting citizens from price gouging businesses during an emergency.
40. Paul Ryan voted in favor of shipping nuclear fuel to India without India signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
41. Paul Ryan voted against Mining Safety Reform, and he is part owner of an Oklahoma mining business, Ava O Limited Co.
42. Paul Ryan supported waiving environmental regulation on commercial logging in America's National Forests.
43. Paul Ryan owns stock in Wells Fargo and Exxon Mobil.
44. Paul Ryan voted to give Federal land to a private company to allow development of a copper mine, & much of his wealth comes from mining.
45. Paul Ryan voted to weaken Air Pollution Permit Regulations in the Clean Air Act.
46. Paul Ryan voted to cut Title 1 funding for teachers by $693.5 mil & against enhancing school budgets to avoid teacher layoffs.
47. Paul Ryan voted to cut funds for the GEAR UP program, denying over 130,000 disadvantaged youth the help they need to get into college.
48. Ryan supported extreme cuts to education, including 100,000 new teachers, after-school programs & teacher quality/recruitment programs.
49. Paul Ryan voted to give India access to US nuclear technology.
50. Ryan's plan would increase prescription drug costs for seniors by reopening the Doughnut Hole in drug coverage that Obamacare closed.
51. Ryan's plan reduces Federal spending on each Medicare beneficiary by 35-42%, forcing them to cover the remaining costs out-of-pocket.
52. Ryan's plan raises the Medicare Retirement Age from 65 To 67, but repeals Obamacare, leaving 65 & 66 yr olds w/out any guarantee of care.
53. Ryan's plan would do away with Medicare’s direct payment for health care for seniors, replacing it with coupons for private insurers.
54. Paul Ryan voted against increasing lending and lowering taxes for small businesses.
55. Paul Ryan supported cutting student loan funding, social programs and agriculture funding but, prevented HMO cuts.
56. Paul Ryan voted against a $2,500 tax credit for college students.
57. Paul Ryan opposed increases for special education & teacher quality programs.
58. Paul Ryan defended Bush’s handling of the economy, saying Bush inherited a recession-bound economy and fought for job growth.
59. Paul Ryan voted against mandatory Rest and Recuperation for American troops in Iraq.
60. Paul Ryan voted against requiring gun show purchasers to undergo background checks then, voted to weaken background check standards.
61. Paul Ryan voted against restrictions on fed funded faith-based groups protecting against employment discrimination based on religion.
62. Paul Ryan voted against banning the slaughter of horses for meat.
63. Paul Ryan voted for a $175,000 study on whether to improve dental benefits for House members.
64. Paul Ryan voted against regulating Wall Street after the financial crisis.
65. During the Bush admin, Ryan voted for the $700mil bailout, yet in 2009(during Obama's term), he voted to prevent the release of the 2nd half of that same bailout.
66. Paul Ryan voted in favor of $19.1 billion in interior spending, including more than $600 million in fossil fuel subsidies.
67. Paul Ryan voted against raising fuel economy standards.
68. Paul Ryan supported legal protection for restaurants that knowingly sold beef of “downed” cows - the ones that most likely have Mad Cow Disease.
69. Ryan opposed the Food Safety Modernization Act which increases the number of required inspections on & verifies the safety of imported food.
70. Paul Ryan lied and said he never requested stimulus funds...until the letters he wrote specifically requesting them surfaced.
71. Paul Ryan voted against giving $3.7 billion in agriculture disaster relief.
72. Paul Ryan opposed a ban on human cloning.
73. Paul Ryan did not oppose ANY spending measures during the yrs Republicans held full sway in Congress or the White House.
74. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Paul Ryan's budget cuts would result in 4.1 million jobs lost through just 2014.
75. Paul Ryan's plan would double the interest rate on student loans ensuring all Americans do not have an equal opportunity to succeed.
76. Paul Ryan's budget cuts SNAP (food stamp) benefits by $133 billion over 10 yrs and eviscerates Pell grants.
77. Paul Ryan's budget would cut funding for health care programs for low and middle-income individuals by more than 75% by 2050.
78. Paul Ryan would outlaw abortion, even for rape and incest or even to protect the life of the mother.
79. Paul Ryan voted for the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq war, and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, none of which were paid for.
80. Paul Ryan as never held statewide office and has no foreign-policy experience.
81. Paul Ryan supports allowing states to jail women who get, and doctors who perform, abortions.
82. Paul Ryan's budget would add $3.1 trillion to the deficit, more than would be added under current law.
83. Paul Ryan's budget cuts Medicaid by 45%, leaving 19mil people without health care.
84. Paul Ryan possesses only a Bachelors degree, which is fine but, that means his "expertise" in economics comes from a few undergrad courses and Ayn Rand fiction.
85. While destroying medicare, Ryan's budget plan offers huge subsidies and tax breaks for the oil and mining industries.
86. Ryan voted to cut funds for GEAR UP, denying 130,000+ disadvantaged youth the help they need to get into college.
87. Paul Ryan supported trillions of dollars of deficit spending under Bush and now rails against any government spending.
88. Paul Ryan's plan for America was inspired by and derived from the deranged mind of the serial-killer groupie Ayn Rand.
89. Defense Department: “Ryan Inc" has had 22+ defense contracts w/ the fed gov since '96, including 1 worth $5.6M in taxpayer $$.
90. Paul Ryan says, "Rape is just another form of conception" and believes in forcing women to carry and give birth to their rapist's children.
91. Ryan says he'll reduce the deficit, but his tax cuts for big corporations & the rich are so large, there aren't enough tax code loopholes to offset them.
92. Each Medicare beneficiary would be spending $6,359 more out-of-pocket under Ryan's plan.
Enough said.
March 17, 2012
EXPOSED: AWHL Funding GOP's War On Women
The cashier of a local dry cleaning business has said he believes he knows who is truly behind the string of recent attacks on women's rights being waged by the GOP.
Even though he wishes to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisal, he was brave enough to express his suspicions to me, "Our regular hanger salesman, he used to be REAL pushy, you know? Kind of desperate for sales; sometimes even crying when I'd say we don't need no hangers."
The cashier told me that all changed once the GOP's War on Women began. "It was kind of suspicious. The hanger salesman hardly comes around now, and when he does, he acts like he don't care whether we buy his hangers or not. Oh, and he's driving a new Hyundai. Something is going on."
At that moment, he was cut off from his story as a customer came in. I watched him with her, the way he handled her grape juice-stained slacks and her dog hair-covered guest room comforter. I thought about how his story was hard to buy; salesmen are always desperate. The customer dropped a nickel on her way out and he called her back to let her know, instead of keeping it for himself. ... I believed him.
My next stop was the headquarters of the American Wire Hanger Lobby (AWHL) to confront their President, Harmon Peepel. I expected resistance to meeting with me, denial of the charges levied against them, but Mr. Peepel was happy to tell me all about what he describes as a "recent windfall."
"We made a killing in the 60's! No environmental regulations on dry cleaners, all that 'free love', restrictions on birth control and no legal abortion... We were living the high life. But, the Roe vs. Wade decision hit our industry pretty hard. The Clean Air Act and the legalization of birth control for all citizens didn't help the situation but, then, the real kicker. The thing that nearly brought our entire industry to its knees... The 1981 release of 'Mommy Dearest'. Our biggest competitors, the Padded-Satin Hanger Lobby (PSHL) jumped on that bandwagon and waved that "no wire hangers" scene all over the media. We've been struggling ever since."
He gets up and pours himself a scotch from the cherry wood bar in the corner of the room. He doesn't offer me anything. I wait. Harmon Peepel stares out of the 15th floor window. Without looking at me, he tells me all about his grand plan to increase sales of wire hangers by funding the GOP to reduce abortion rights and make it more difficult for women to get or afford birth control, thus forcing more private sales of wire hangers. He tells me sales haven't been this good since 1972 and things are looking up; after all, several more states are working on passing legislation designed to directly increase the sales of wire hangers to women.
I asked him if he feels any remorse for attacking women to increase sales. He tells me, "Hey! This is about the free market. We're an industry of tens of people. I have a responsibility to them and their families."
Even though he wishes to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisal, he was brave enough to express his suspicions to me, "Our regular hanger salesman, he used to be REAL pushy, you know? Kind of desperate for sales; sometimes even crying when I'd say we don't need no hangers."
The cashier told me that all changed once the GOP's War on Women began. "It was kind of suspicious. The hanger salesman hardly comes around now, and when he does, he acts like he don't care whether we buy his hangers or not. Oh, and he's driving a new Hyundai. Something is going on."
At that moment, he was cut off from his story as a customer came in. I watched him with her, the way he handled her grape juice-stained slacks and her dog hair-covered guest room comforter. I thought about how his story was hard to buy; salesmen are always desperate. The customer dropped a nickel on her way out and he called her back to let her know, instead of keeping it for himself. ... I believed him.
My next stop was the headquarters of the American Wire Hanger Lobby (AWHL) to confront their President, Harmon Peepel. I expected resistance to meeting with me, denial of the charges levied against them, but Mr. Peepel was happy to tell me all about what he describes as a "recent windfall."
"We made a killing in the 60's! No environmental regulations on dry cleaners, all that 'free love', restrictions on birth control and no legal abortion... We were living the high life. But, the Roe vs. Wade decision hit our industry pretty hard. The Clean Air Act and the legalization of birth control for all citizens didn't help the situation but, then, the real kicker. The thing that nearly brought our entire industry to its knees... The 1981 release of 'Mommy Dearest'. Our biggest competitors, the Padded-Satin Hanger Lobby (PSHL) jumped on that bandwagon and waved that "no wire hangers" scene all over the media. We've been struggling ever since."
He gets up and pours himself a scotch from the cherry wood bar in the corner of the room. He doesn't offer me anything. I wait. Harmon Peepel stares out of the 15th floor window. Without looking at me, he tells me all about his grand plan to increase sales of wire hangers by funding the GOP to reduce abortion rights and make it more difficult for women to get or afford birth control, thus forcing more private sales of wire hangers. He tells me sales haven't been this good since 1972 and things are looking up; after all, several more states are working on passing legislation designed to directly increase the sales of wire hangers to women.
I asked him if he feels any remorse for attacking women to increase sales. He tells me, "Hey! This is about the free market. We're an industry of tens of people. I have a responsibility to them and their families."
February 22, 2012
The Progressive American Report - Get On PAR!
We are Progressives because we understand the complexity of the many problems that face our country, our world and its people...and we care about moving America forward. But, let's face it, not everyone understands complex issues. So, how do we reach those people?
Comment with your ideas. I promise to consider and reply to all of them. ;-)
Comment with your ideas. I promise to consider and reply to all of them. ;-)
February 17, 2012
Why Christians (and therefore the GOP) Hate Women
I've figured it out. It all makes sense. I now understand why Christians and the GOP hate women. It's a long and preposterous story so, let's get started.
Let's take a look at this issue through their eyes.
In the Beginning
In the Bible, God created man and animals and everything was going great. Adam had the ultimate man-cave, the Garden of Eden, to hang out in - unlimited fishing, bear wrestling, ball scratching...all the great stuff about life.
But after a while, God noticed that Adam was spending WAY more time on ball scratching than necessary & when the light was just right, his eyes were lingering a little too long on the Beaver. So, God created woman. She was beautiful and alluring and Adam couldn't stop thinking about her naughty parts.
But, then Eve got hungry and Adam told her he wanted to watch football and didn't feel like going out. Just find something to eat here, he told her. Fine, Eve found something to eat but, then Adam started yelling from the couch that if she was making herself something she could bring a sandwich or something for him. So, she did.
Well, apparently, they had gotten into God's secret stash of Oreos or something and He wasn't happy about it. Not happy at all. In fact, He was so unhappy that he kicked Adam and Eve right out of the ultimate man-cave.
But, that wasn't all. God - knowing how much everyone enjoyed Eve's naughty parts - also put a "curse" on them that made them frightening and confusing for Adam but, yet, he still couldn't stop thinking about them.
So. The first reason Christians hate women is because Woman got Man thrown out of the ultimate man-cave when she pissed off God for eating His cookies...or as the Church labels it - created SIN. [remember that for later]
The second reason is because those naughty parts of ours are confusing and frightening to men yet, they cannot stop thinking about them...and that confuses and frightens them.
Let's take a look at this issue through their eyes.
In the Beginning
In the Bible, God created man and animals and everything was going great. Adam had the ultimate man-cave, the Garden of Eden, to hang out in - unlimited fishing, bear wrestling, ball scratching...all the great stuff about life.
But after a while, God noticed that Adam was spending WAY more time on ball scratching than necessary & when the light was just right, his eyes were lingering a little too long on the Beaver. So, God created woman. She was beautiful and alluring and Adam couldn't stop thinking about her naughty parts.
But, then Eve got hungry and Adam told her he wanted to watch football and didn't feel like going out. Just find something to eat here, he told her. Fine, Eve found something to eat but, then Adam started yelling from the couch that if she was making herself something she could bring a sandwich or something for him. So, she did.
Well, apparently, they had gotten into God's secret stash of Oreos or something and He wasn't happy about it. Not happy at all. In fact, He was so unhappy that he kicked Adam and Eve right out of the ultimate man-cave.
But, that wasn't all. God - knowing how much everyone enjoyed Eve's naughty parts - also put a "curse" on them that made them frightening and confusing for Adam but, yet, he still couldn't stop thinking about them.
So. The first reason Christians hate women is because Woman got Man thrown out of the ultimate man-cave when she pissed off God for eating His cookies...or as the Church labels it - created SIN. [remember that for later]
The second reason is because those naughty parts of ours are confusing and frightening to men yet, they cannot stop thinking about them...and that confuses and frightens them.
February 19, 2011
A RWNJ's Guide on How to Argue with Liberals on Twitter
[You can read the updated 2013 edition of this list here.]
It can be hard to remember all of the important elements involved in arguing with a liberal, but here is a handy checklist to make sure you've included all of the pieces essential to maintaining the purity of the RWNJ brand.
[You can read the updated 2013 edition of this list here.]
It can be hard to remember all of the important elements involved in arguing with a liberal, but here is a handy checklist to make sure you've included all of the pieces essential to maintaining the purity of the RWNJ brand.
- Whatever FOX says, you say. When in doubt, watch Glenn Beck.
- Incorporate the #fox, #glennbeck or #tcot hashtag in every tweet, because by calling forth other RWNJs to also attack your opponent, you'll never have to give a real answer for anything.
- If a liberal asks you to provide a source for any claim you have made to prove it is a fact, always respond: "Do your own research!!" or "I'm not going to do your research for you." That way, you don't have to do any research.
- If you feel you must send them a source link, make sure it is only a link from a right-wing blog or op-ed piece. It doesn't matter if you've read it.
- It is also helpful to have a ready list of links on-hand that are completely unrelated to the topic of discussion to flood your opponent's @replies with. Again, it doesn't matter if you've read them.
- If you're unsure about how to start a tweet, try "Why don't you ask Obama/Reid/Pelosi why..." That should get your creative juices flowing.
- All of your tweets (whether you are in a debate or not) should contain at least one insulting name for liberals. Libtard is a favorite, but it is getting a bit less effective from constant overuse. I suggest the more modern twist, Libturd.
- Stay away from facts. Facts are only opinions reinforced by truth.
- Never answer a question. The best way to counter the left's expectation for meaningful dialogue is to ask them an unrelated question in return, such as "Why do you like to kill unborn babies?"
- Make sure each of your tweets is riddled with grammatical and spelling errors. After all, you wouldn't want anyone to be able to accuse you of being one of the "intellectual elite".
- Each of your tweets should include one of the RWNJ signature terms - commie, Marxist, socialist, or Nazi. You may use them interchangeably to keep things fresh. To keep up on the latest trend, trying using "Caliphate" or "sharia law".
- Mention Soros.
- Sprinkle the terms "Patriot," "Constitution," "liberty" and "freedom" here and there to constantly remind others that you're a real American, even when you're not acting like one.
[You can read the updated 2013 edition of this list here.]
June 01, 2010
How is the AZ Immigration Law Racist?
With all the discussion over the new and controversial Arizona Immigration Bill, and multiple requests from at least one demanding and, I suspect, mentally unstable troll on Twitter, I have decided to put some time into answering the question, "How is the Arizona Immigration Law racist?" because it cannot be answered in 160 characters or less.
It's true that the Arizona Legislature has amended the law (after a public outcry) with a specific rule that racial profiling is not permitted as a way to single out people to target with this law, and as we all know, because it says racial profiling is not allowed, no one will do it, right? Because, that would be unheard of. LOL! But...for the sake of argument, let's make the assumption here that all law officers in Arizona are above reproach and would never cross the line in some sort of megalomaniacal exhibition.
So, "racial stereotyping" is forbidden in the text, it's true; but class-based stereotyping with racial connotations is apparently permitted and even encouraged. How, you ask?
As part of the immigration bill, a police officer responding to city ordinance violations would be required to determine the immigration status of an individual they have reasonable suspicion of being an undocumented immigrant. How does that translate into racial stereotyping against Hispanics?
Well, in 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 50% of Arizonans living below the poverty line were Hispanic, which is the highest percentage of any race living below the poverty line in Arizona.
An email from one of the activists who helped draft and modify the law (Kris Kobach) clarifies: "Police are able to use violations of property codes (i.e., cars on blocks in the yard) or rental codes (too many occupants of a rental accommodation) to initiate queries" into someone's immigration status.
So, a poor person (and don't forget, most of the poor people in Arizona are Hispanic) that must work on their own car at home because they cannot afford to pay, often outrageous, garage fees is at risk, and a family who cannot afford the rent on a large apartment or home for their large family is also at risk if they have, say, many children sharing a bedroom.
Also, the law states that an officer has reasonable suspicion to check the immigration status of anyone "soliciting work in a public place" (§ 5(C), page 5) such as in front of a Home Depot, where the majority of day workers seeking day labor jobs are Latino.
It also "authorizes (§ 6(A), page 6 7) law enforcement officers to arrest an individual without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the individual has committed any public offense that makes him/her removable from the U.S." ...you know, such as, being in the U.S. illegally.
So, who takes credit in drafting the language of the AZ Immigration law? Click on the links for more information.
In addition, they may not understand the lengths to which this bill's authors have gone to hide their intentions within the legalese of the bill's text; intentions, which based upon the authors' previous records of anti-immigrant rhetoric, are suspect at best.
It's true that the Arizona Legislature has amended the law (after a public outcry) with a specific rule that racial profiling is not permitted as a way to single out people to target with this law, and as we all know, because it says racial profiling is not allowed, no one will do it, right? Because, that would be unheard of. LOL! But...for the sake of argument, let's make the assumption here that all law officers in Arizona are above reproach and would never cross the line in some sort of megalomaniacal exhibition.
So, "racial stereotyping" is forbidden in the text, it's true; but class-based stereotyping with racial connotations is apparently permitted and even encouraged. How, you ask?
As part of the immigration bill, a police officer responding to city ordinance violations would be required to determine the immigration status of an individual they have reasonable suspicion of being an undocumented immigrant. How does that translate into racial stereotyping against Hispanics?
Well, in 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 50% of Arizonans living below the poverty line were Hispanic, which is the highest percentage of any race living below the poverty line in Arizona.
An email from one of the activists who helped draft and modify the law (Kris Kobach) clarifies: "Police are able to use violations of property codes (i.e., cars on blocks in the yard) or rental codes (too many occupants of a rental accommodation) to initiate queries" into someone's immigration status.
So, a poor person (and don't forget, most of the poor people in Arizona are Hispanic) that must work on their own car at home because they cannot afford to pay, often outrageous, garage fees is at risk, and a family who cannot afford the rent on a large apartment or home for their large family is also at risk if they have, say, many children sharing a bedroom.
Also, the law states that an officer has reasonable suspicion to check the immigration status of anyone "soliciting work in a public place" (§ 5(C), page 5) such as in front of a Home Depot, where the majority of day workers seeking day labor jobs are Latino.
It also "authorizes (§ 6(A), page 6 7) law enforcement officers to arrest an individual without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the individual has committed any public offense that makes him/her removable from the U.S." ...you know, such as, being in the U.S. illegally.
So, who takes credit in drafting the language of the AZ Immigration law? Click on the links for more information.
- Kris Kobach - A birther who's running for Kansas Secretary of State. He’s also an attorney for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of an anti-immigration group called FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
- John Tanton - Founded FAIR in 1979 and is still listed as a member of their board of directors. In 1986, Tanton wrote this, “To govern is to populate. Will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile? As whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night or will there be an explosion?”
- The Pioneer Fund - Funders of FAIR and is self-described as based “in the Darwinian-Galtonian evolutionary tradition and eugenics movement.” For the last 70 years, the Pioneer Fund has funded controversial research about race and intelligence, essentially aimed at proving the racial superiority of white people. The group’s original mandate was to promote the genes of those “deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original 13 states prior to the adoption of the Constitution.”
- Alleged wife beater - In divorce papers, his wife, LuAnn had claimed that he has a violent temper and had hit and shoved her, including an incident in which he grabbed her by the throat and threw her down to the floor.
- Tea party supporter. 'nuf said.
- Friend to J.T. Ready, an AZ state precinct committeeman who just happens to be an exposed Neo Nazi (he's the one holding the image of Hitler).
- Pearce is the author of HB 2631, which amends current AZ marriage law to require that a prospective bride and groom provide both their social security numbers and proof of citizenship before a marriage license is issued. So, only American citizens can wed American citizens. If your boyfriend or girlfriend has a greencard, you can forget about getting married in Arizona.
- In October 2006, Pearce forwarded an email from National Alliance, a white separatist group, to a group of supporters. The email titled "Who Rules America? The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken," which criticized black and white intermixing, Jews in the media for promoting multiculturalism and racial equality, for depicting "any racially conscious White Person" as a bigot, and for presenting the Holocaust as fact.
- He has declared his intention to place a referendum on the November ballot that would prohibit AZ hospitals from issuing birth certificates to children born of illegal parents. So, I guess as a tea party supporter, he loves the Constitution, except for the parts that he doesn't love...like the 14th amendment.
In addition, they may not understand the lengths to which this bill's authors have gone to hide their intentions within the legalese of the bill's text; intentions, which based upon the authors' previous records of anti-immigrant rhetoric, are suspect at best.
May 25, 2010
Pathos
Distorted candor
tumbles freely;
Words of discord
trials of peace.
Disjointed all
from one another,
heaving sobs
of their disgrace.
Swept in depths
of haughty rhythms,
Melodious is
one's own deceit.
Entrenched in life
that's unrequited;
Heaven's jest,
the soul's defeat.
tumbles freely;
Words of discord
trials of peace.
Disjointed all
from one another,
heaving sobs
of their disgrace.
Swept in depths
of haughty rhythms,
Melodious is
one's own deceit.
Entrenched in life
that's unrequited;
Heaven's jest,
the soul's defeat.
October 18, 2009
May 01, 2009
Due to budget cutbacks...
...the light at the end of the tunnel will be out.
- Here's a b-day shoutout to the Illuminati, born on this day in 1776... ♫ (It's your birthday) so let's party and have some fun. (It's your birthday) ♫
- Is Facebook an Illuminati plot? Uh oh, I hope they're not keeping a secret file of my Superpokes!
- Another good reason to par-tay...it's Beltane!
- The dark secret at Antarctica's Blood Falls. I've just added it to my list of places to visit before I die.
- Here's something cool and scary that I'm also going to have to partake in at some point. Eek! It's the crocostimpy!!
- The world's largest pool. I think its more of a mini ocean.
- Sonar causes rock-concert effect in dolphins. That's what they get for buying seats right next to the speakers.
- Danny Gans and his "latest" vanishing act. What? Too soon?
- Tree #3. The Larch.
- Tomorrow, May 2nd, is free comic book day!! Yay! I know what I'm doing tomorrow.
"Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down? We do, We do. Who keeps Atlantis off the maps? Who keeps the Martians under wraps? We do, we do."
-The Stonecutters Song, The Simpsons
April 16, 2009
Why a little "pork" can be good for everyone.
While on Twitter this morning (Follow me on Twitter), after tweeting about the hilarious 'homotoned' neocon movement naming trend (asking us to 'tea bag' Obama and NOM's unfortunately named, 2M4M initiative), I made a comment about Elisabeth Hasselbeck and her inability to understand that the tea party movement is not really grassroots, but 'astroturf' or a fake grassroots movement. I was immediately replied to by someone who doesn't normally follow me. Below is an excerpt of the ensuing conversation.
- NAKEDAXIOM: Will somebody PLEASE explain this to Elisabeth #Hasselbeck? The '#teabagging' is not a #grassroots movement! http://bit.ly/1tE9kM
- BANAIAH: @NakedAxiom Using #teabagging is a funny snark but silly. If is not a #grassroots movement then what is? It certainly wasn't #astroturf.
- NAKEDAXIOM: @banaiah when its backed by groups like #Freedomworks, it's certainly not #grassroots; its a coerced movement by lobbyists, or #astroturf.
- BANAIAH: @NakedAxiom #freedomworks as well as #Newt in fact did get involved. But the movement started long before their involvement. (followup tweet) But the to a larger point. Who cares? Are people genuinely upset about taxes? About big Gov't? Hell yes! #tcot #teaparty
- NAKEDAXIOM: @banaiah I care. #Taxes are necessary to pay for our country's #infrastructure. Explain how we do that, without them.
- BANAIAH: @NakedAxiom I reject your premise that I want no taxes. They are not to fund each and every politicians pet project. #tcot #teaparty
- BANAIAH: @NakedAxiom Even if its wasteful nor the role of the federal gov't? Do you believe that to be fair? #tcot
Of coure, I certainly don't want to pay for any bridges to nowhere...who would? But, I do understand the need in the government to include projects like a highspeed rail system between LA and Las Vegas, volcano research in Yellowstone (you know, the supervolcano underneath it...oh, you don't? Here's some info.), and pig odor elimination research in Iowa for the people of those communities, and when it comes to the volcano research - for all of us.
With oversight and good system of checks and balances, a little pork can be good for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)