Ted Nugent is an idiot about racism, and probably a lot more

I recently heard that Ted Nugent knows for a fact that there hasn't been racism in America since the late 60s. Well, I know that he's pretty stupid just listening his talk about guns, but I didn't know he's a complete idiot until now. Why? Because I know there was racism in the 70s. How? Because it happened to me and a friend of mine in 1975. And I'm white, by the way.

So Ted, there wasn't racism in 1975? So then explain to me why, when I, a white man, and a friend of mine who was black, was refused service in Mississippi in 1975. Tell me that the waitress didn't say they don't serve our kind. Then she pointed to my friend and said, "We don't serve niggers here, and we don't serve white trash folks who are their friends." And this wasn't some small, 150 person town. No, this happened in Biloxi. And yes, we were both members of the Air Force at the time.

I know from my own experiences that, when it comes to racism, Ted Nugent is an idiot, and he's completely wrong. I suspect that's not the only thing he's is an idiot and knows nothing about.  

Boehner barks at, but refuses to bite, the Tea Party.

After Rep. Steve King, one of the most vocal and strongest members of the Tea Party in Congress, came out with his vile and repulsive comments about most Dreamers being drug mules, Speaker John Boehner, and several others in the GOP hierarchy, said that there was no place for talk like that. But did that stop Rep. King? Does it stop any kid to tell them what they're doing is wrong and then not punish them? That's right, absolutely not.

Although Speaker Boehner said it was wrong of Rep. King to talk like that, Rep. King doubled down, saying he had it on good authority that his numbers were right, and he was the expert on Dreamers and drug mules, not the Speaker. So after all this, why is Rep. King still the Vice-Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law? That's right, the subcommittee that has jurisdiction on immigration and border security has as the second most powerful person the same person that made such a ridiculous statement. And that's okay with the Speaker. As a matter of fact, last month, the Speaker passed through the House a bill by Rep. King to allow the deportation of all Dreamers.

So, Speaker Boehner says that Rep. King's word have no place in the GOP. But his actions say, you're one of us, Steve King. Boehner barks, but refuses to bite the Tea Party. And that's all America needs to know about Boehner to decide what a horrible Speaker he is.      

Boehner tells the truth about what the GOP really wants.

Several months ago, I wrote what the real GOP plan is for the country, and several of my friends asked me how I could think the GOP would have such a plan. Well, I'm sorry to tell you, not only am I right, Speaker Boehner backed me up this weekend.

A few months ago, I wrote that the true plan for the GOP is to eliminate, as much as possible, the federal government. Well, there was Speaker Boehner on Face The Nation that the Congress should be judged on how many bills they passed, but by how many bills they can get repealed. That's right, he just flat out and admitted that their plan is to get rid of the federal government. Don't judge them on bills that can help American's in their every day life, but judge them on repealing bills and getting rid of the federal government and the help it can give to people. That's the GOP vision for the future, and it's something I told you about months ago.

Speaker Boehner got on TV this weekend on said that Congress should be judged by how many bills they can repeal. Several people were taken back by the statement. I was just taken back by the fact that he said so bluntly what the GOP plan for America is. That's right, the GOP plan isn't the United States of America, but the 50 Different States of America.

Some in GOP thinks going back to 1955 isn't enough.

Just when some people think the GOP can't go any farther right, some GOP politician proves that, oh yes, we can. This time it is a Utah State Representative that wants to make school non-compulsory.  In other words, he wants to pass a bill where a kid wouldn't have to go to school. Now, I'm not sure what he's trying to say, that education isn't important, or parents know what their kids need to know. But it seems that where most of the GOP has social and health bills that would take the country back to the 1950s, his bill would take Utah back to the 1850s. Is this a competition? You know, the GOP who can take their constituents the farthest back in time gets some sort of a prize.

Some in the GOP think going back to the 1950s isn't enough. Wouldn't it be nice if they looked forward to see what the country might need in the 2020s instead of taking us back to the 1850s?      

Senator Reid again stabs democracy in the back.

For the second time this year, Senator Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has decided not to change the filibuster rules in the Senate. Now, it was called the Nuclear Option, but in fact, all it did was to give the President, actually any future President if the rule had passed, the ability to to nominate a cabinet member or any administration board appointee and have them approved with a simple majority. What is so nuclear about that? Why shouldn't any President have that right? This would not include any judges or bills. We vote for President, and I think that any President should have the right to have anyone they choose to work in their administration, as long as a majority in the Senate agrees. The Senate is there to advise and consent on these appointments. Why should that mean the minority can block an appointment? Sorry, Senator Reid, as I see it, you again stabbed democracy in the back when you refused to amend the filibuster rules in the Senate.  

 

What the George Zimmerman verdict really means.

After learning of the George Zimmerman verdict, I was never worried about riots or violence. To start with, I think it was Fox News that asked the question about how bad the violence would be. I don't think a lot of liberal blacks were watching Fox News and asking themselves, yeah they're right, why shouldn't I riot? No, what really worried me is that Missouri, where I live, will now pass the same kind of "Stand Your Ground" that Florida has passed, and which I believe allowed for the acquittal. And that's what I believe the Zimmerman trial and verdict should mean to everyone.

Now, depending on your view of the trial and verdict, you can find things that people have said that you find completely non-understandable, and in some cases, down right repulsive. Ann Coulter, when finding out the verdict tweeted "Hallelujah". Nothing about how bad it was that a teenage boy had died. I'm sure if I looked at some on the left, if I took Zimmerman's side, that they said things that I would find strange. But what really think this verdict means is you get the government you allow others to push for and vote for. It's wasn't the current far-right Governor of Florida that passed the bill, but what some would say the "moderate", Governor Jeb Bush. How many if Florida thought, okay, this is a man who will keep us safe. So I don't need to vote against him. I won't vote for him, so I'll just let others make the decision. Well, did you think about what that meant, or about the state representatives or state senators that were on the ballot? Think Florida is conservative? In relationship to Missouri, it's practically Massachusetts. If it can happen there, it sure can happen here. And this is a thought that should go through a lot of people's mind. In other words, every election matters, even if we think it doesn't. If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain afterwards.

There are many ways to take the Zimmerman verdict. But the best way to take it is: I don't like the law that allowed this to happen, and I need to make sure it can't happen here. And I'm going to get more involved to ensure it doesn't.          

If Senate Filibuster Reform fails, GOP will continue to dismantle the Government

In the next few days, either Senate Democrats will reform the filibuster rules or they will allow the GOP to continue to dismantle the federal government. It's really that important, so why don't people care? There are several reasons.

For this generation of GOP politicians, their basic tenet and their mantra is fairly simple: The federal government is bad and needs to gotten rid of or starved out of existence. Any programs run by the federal government can be run by a corporation or a company. States have the sovereign right to do whatever they like. And no state has to agree with another state when it comes to laws. Looking at every GOP move over the last 5 years, you can see that this is exactly what every law and every idea they've agreed to have stemmed from. So how will Filibuster Reform stem this tide? Simply, the GOP in the Senate simply refuse to confirm any nominee for any government board or agency they disagree with through the filibuster. All this reform act does is to make those nominees' approval by a simple majority instead of by more than 60 votes. It's a small act of reform but an important act. So why don't people care? Simply, part of the population, those watching Fox News, agrees with the GOP, while others care but they're watching channels that are following the trial in Florida. But, the biggest reason is that Senate Democrats haven't even tried to get on TV and explain the reason why this move is needed. Think the GOP has that problem? Of course they don't. They're on TV every day telling the world what they don't like, why they don't like it, and what they're going to do about it. This is one place where the Democrats need to follow the lead of the GOP.

If Senate Filibuster Reform fails, the GOP will continue to dismantle the federal government. Too bad most people don't know how important this reform is to their daily lives.          

President Obama hypocritical because of corruption?

There are some here in Kansas City that are complaining that President Obama is being hypocritical of African democracies when he said that their governments need to worry about the rot of corruption. Now, as anyone who follows politics can tell you, he was talking about how money can make new fledgling governments do things that go against the will of their people and overlook laws. Is that what the Obama Administration is doing? Get real!

No matter what side of the scandals a person takes, and I think most are basically just the GOP hating the President, there is no doubt that big money does influence governments in the country. Now, as far as anyone can tell, there is no scandal where money changed hands to change anything. Now, money does go into campaigns to influence votes on both sides, but that is not corruption like the President was talking about in Africa. Here in America, at this time, almost all big money is on the side of the GOP and against President Obama and every-day Americans. Wall Street backs the GOP, but gives money to Democrats to try to keep a voice in the process if they get elected. ALEC simply takes their money and their ideas into State Legislatures and hands bills to GOP State Congressmen and Senators to get enacted into law. People like the Koch Brothers are getting local laws passed and attempting to buy newspapers to quiet anyone who disagrees with them. Not one of them would back anything the President would try and get enacted.

Some people are saying President Obama was hypocritical of African corruption when there is so much here in America. But here, it's actually the GOP that uses big money, and vise versa, to attempt to subvert the American people's will.      

The problems in Egypt should surprise no one.

With the Army taking control in Egypt today, some are saying that that this is a terrible move against democracy, while others are saying it is a great move for democracy. But the truth is, it shouldn't come as a anyone that democracy in Egypt comes in spurts and sputters along. And that isn't because of any reason that is special to Egypt, but because of democracy itself.

A few years ago, a country said that it no longer was part of a great European empire and declared itself a sovereign country. A year later, Articles of Confederation were wrote while the country was still fighting for its sovereign rights. The first time the Articles went to press, there was a mistake, and a second pressing had to be made. Four years later; the country won its freedom, but 6 years later the Articles were found to be insufficient to the tasks of the nation. This change took a year before a new constitution was ratified, but to this day, that founding document is being amended, with amendments being debated by both politicians and regular people. And tomorrow, that country will celebrate with fireworks in every major city, and most of the small ones. Yes, that country that got off to such a rough start is the United States of America.

The actions in Egypt today should make democracy-loving people around the world pause and take notice. But we also be calmed by the fact that Egyptian democracy, while not on a straight line, is progressing like other countries' push for freedom, and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.  

NFL gets advice from the White House and threats from GOP Senators

The NFL may be the most powerful sports league in America, but the people in the league office found they are not immune from the politics in Washington. And, unfortunately, the NFL did what it had to do and back the GOP.

Both the White House and two GOP Senators sent letters last week to the NFL office concerning The Affordable HealthCare Act. Obviously, the White House sent the letter to try to get all NFL teams to get the word out in their organizations, while the GOP Senators sent a letter advising the NFL to stay completely out of the Act. So why was that letter a threat? Simply, it's Congress that has the say whether the NFL is breaking anti-trust laws. So, in effect, the letter, whether the threat was implied or not, was telling the NFL that they would watch and see what actions the league would take. Think the NFL didn't know that when they decided to take no action to tell teams about the Act? Think of it this way: Your boss' boss' boss says that he'd like you to look at an idea of his and tell him if you like it or not. Then your boss comes back and says you better not like that idea. I won't tell you who can make your life here a living hell, but I better not find that the idea has your approval. Which way would you go on the idea? Probably the same way the NFL
did, saying to the big man, thanks for the information, but I don't think it works for me. Now, everyone is okay with your decision, or at least accept it. Everyone except the people that could have been helped with the idea to start with.        

The NFL got two letters about The Affordable HealthCare Act, the first from the White House asking for help and advising the league on how the Act works, and the second from 2 GOP Senators telling the NFL that they better not act on the first letter. So tell me, which branch of the government was advising and which one was bullying?