GOP can't even get outrage right.

How bad has it gotten for the GOP recently? It's gotten so bad that they can't get their own outrage, or understand the outrage of liberals, correctly, and Fox News is just as confused. It really is the blind leading the blind.

The GOP has once again taken, with the Duck Dynasty controversy, the wrong track, not only in the liberal's outrage but their own. The GOP started by ripping A&E for suspending the patriarch of the family for anti-homosexual statements and for out-and-out misrepresenting blacks during the Jim Crow era in America. So, the GOP is now saying that company can't fire a person when that individual speaks in such a way? Well, that's really not what they meant. No, they meant that everyone has the right to speak their mind. Then, liberals asked where the outrage from the right was when Martin Bashir was fired for statements about Palin or when radio stations refused to play Dixie Chicks song after their lead singer spoke out about George W. Bush and the Iraq War if they believed that. So the GOP quickly changed their tactic and went after liberals, saying it wasn't right of liberals to get the Duck Dynasty clan father fired. But that's not what liberals did, but that didn't stop Fox News from ripping liberals apart and fomenting distrust and hatred of liberals among their followers. And this never-ending cycle continues to this day, with both the GOP and Fox News missing the original outrages of both themselves and liberals.

The GOP hasn't gotten much right recently, so I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone when they got the Duck Dynasty controversy wrong. But it is surprising that they can't even get their own outrage right.        

Is the GOP really that dumb? YES!

Late last week, the House passed a budget for the next 2 years, and sometime this week, the Senate will probably do the same. So, did Paul Ryan Sunday on Fox News say that the budget doesn't matter?

While Paul Ryan on Meet the Press, he was congenial, although he stated his far-right austerity views quite well. But then on Fox News, he went even farther. He said that when the debt limit ceiling vote comes up this spring, he would join other GOPers in trying to extract something for raising the debt ceiling, preferable the dismantling of the ACA. I just have to ask, WTF? You make a budget, but then say in 90 days or so you won't fund the budget unless you get your way about the ACA Do you really consider that a sane idea? Didn't October teach you anything? Do you really want to have the country default on bills you approved and passed?

Paul Ryan, just a few days after getting a budget passed, said Sunday that the GOP wouldn't raise the debt ceiling this spring unless changes were made. GOP, are you really that dumb? Unfortunately, the answer is YES.

   

The real GOP "civil war."

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the in-fighting in the GOP recently. But the recent budget agreement has shown exactly what the 2 sides are.

The fight in the GOP is not about ideology. Both sides believe that if you make it on your own, you're fine. If you don't make it on your own, it's your own fault, and you should be given no help by the government. No, it is simply a fight between those who will accept a compromise, and those that see the world, or at least the country, as a "Do it our way or else" place. In another way, one group thinks that the federal government, if not acceptable, at least is something that is needed in our society. The smaller the better, but compromise is needed to keep it running. The other camp believes that the federal government needs to be dismantled in every thing except national defense, and all other powers given back to the states.

The GOP's civil war has nothing to do with ideology, but is between one side that believes in compromise, and those that don't. If it was about ideology, the GOP might have a chance to be a national party. But it since it won't argue ideology, they'll always be a shrinking party.      

Do Democrats need their own "Tea Party" branch?

I saw this question on twitter earlier, and at first, I laughed like almost everyone else I saw when I read their reply. No, of course we (liberals) don't need a branch of the Democratic Party that hates gays, women, Hispanics, government, compromise, and several other things. But then I thought more of it, and I thought, well, a part of the party that believes in the party core beliefs above everything else, but will compromise? Yes, the Democratic Party needs many more of those kind of people.

For the last 20 years, the Democrats have been very obliging to the GOP in that they start negotiations acceding to most of what the GOP wants. The ACA was a GOP plan for universal health care, and then the Democrats agreed to delay most of the Act for 4 years, giving the GOP time to try and get rid of it before people could like it. The same thing happened with new regulations for the banking industry. Even the budget talks are starting from a number 1/3 closer to the number the GOP wanted for the budget than where the Democrats wanted it. How bad is it? Well, the Independent Bernie Sanders has views farther left than all but 3 or 4 of the Democrats in Congress. Last week, Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor said he believes that God should have the final say in how people are governed, and he sees no reason to limit guns. And he's a Democrat! Or, at least that's the party he's running with in Arkansas.

From 1932 until 1992, Democrats were the party of government helping people, a strong belief that government should put limits on the damage businesses could do to people and the environment, and a progressive tax code that gave opportunities to the poor, the needy, the impoverished, and the disabled. That wing of the Democratic Party, its Tea Party as it were, needs to stand up, be counted, and be at the forefront of the Democratic Party, just as the Tea Party is for the GOP.

The GOP looks very small and petty now.

After watching the last 2 days of the political talk shows, I'm just amazed with how small and petty the GOP has become. It's hard to believe just how far they've fallen in the last 30 years.

Looking back at some of the reporting on Nelson Mandela, I am taken aback by 2 things. The first is that the GOP actually went against the President, a man of their own party, in overriding Reagan's veto of sanctions against South Africa. They held the Senate, and enough GOP Senators worked with Democrats to do the right thing. This would never happen today, no matter what the issue. Also, I am more and more amazed at South African President de Klerk, who stepped down and allowed open elections, which led to Mandela's election. Compare that with what the GOP did when Obama was elected in 2008. Before he was ever sworn in, the GOP had gotten together and decided to oppose any and all things that the new President would propose.

In comparing the GOP of today with the GOP of the mid 1960s or even the leader of a government that ruled by apartheid, the GOP looks very small and petty. And it seems they have no desire to expand their ideas. I doubt a conference on how they should talk to women is going to solve that basic problem.  

Nelson Mandela still affects US politics

It was a sad day for almost every one in the world Thursday when Nelson Mandela died. But the actions from people Friday showed that he can effect politics here in America even today, and that some people are simply not on the right side of history. Here are a couple of examples of what I mean, and my thoughts.

-- If there was any question about the far right leaders reflecting the mainstream thoughts of the right in America, it was wiped out by the answer to statements by the GOP masses Friday. When both Speaker Boehner and Senator Ted Cruz made tepid statements simply mentioning the passing, their e-mails and twitter accounts were bombarded with statements saying that they couldn't be real GOPers if they even mentioning his death. And for every letter or tweet that said the Senator or the Speaker didn't go far enough to pay homage to Mandela, there were 100 saying they went to far, and that Mandela was a communist and murderer who shouldn't be praised or even noticed. This is further proof that, no matter what progressive may hope, that leaders in the GOP aren't playing to a fringe when they spout off far-right rhetoric, but to the mainstream of the right.
-- The left wasn't blameless either, though. Several on the right decided that Reagan must have been a racist to allow South Africa to have apartheid. The simply reason that the Reagan administration didn't believe that it was a good policy for America to tell any government how to run their country, especially its allies. And South Africa was an ally against Communism. Even when Reagan went to Germany and told the communists to "tear down this wall", he wasn't talking to the masses to overthrow the government, he was telling the government what he thought they should do. I doubt race had any thought in Reagan's mind when making his decision on this.
-- The GOP those many years ago was wrong about Mandela, was wrong about Iraq and 9/11, was wrong about WMDs in Iraq, and how the US military would be greeted by Iraqis. Other than George H. Bush's decision to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and then not attack Iraq, when was the last time the GOP got something right about foreign policies? Why do we still listen to them when it comes to diplomacy and war?
--Finally, the statements by Nancy Pelosi and Speaker Boehner on the death of Mandela showed why she was such a better Speaker than Boehner. The Speaker, who was writing for the entire House, wrote a short, uncaring note that had the warmth of a cookbook, while's Pelosi's note had warmth and feeling. In other words, how they interact with others were perfectly illustrated in their notes.

Nelson Mandela died Thursday, and the world lost a giant of a man, a true leader and legend. He hadn't been President of South Africa for several years, but his passing showed he still a great affect on US politics.
    

GOP: We'll impeach this imperial President!

Well, the GOP has decided that the can't repeal the ACA, but what they can do is impeach the President. Several GOP House members have stated they can impeach Obama because he is "An imperial President over-stepping the Constitution". Now, if this is actually true, I guess all these things have happened:
-- The Immigration Act has passed, amnesty has been given, and no one has been deported recently.
-- The SNAP program was fully funded for the next 20 years.
-- The transportation bill was enacted and billions of dollars is streaming to states build up the highway system.
-- Unemployment insurance is given to anyone losing their job for as long as they can't get another one, no matter how long it takes.
-- ENDA is enforced in every state.
-- Billions were poured into the rail system, and next year we'll have the fastest rail on the planet.
-- Head Start and Meals on Wheels is given as much money as they need to ensure no old person goes hungry or no child is denied admission into a good pre-school.

Should I go on? None of these things have happened. No, the President has simply done his job, and the GOP doesn't like it. Can we impeach the GOP?  

I told you I was a moderate.

While on twitter today, I realized just exactly how old I am and how strange I am to most people. We started comparing Presidents, and telling how many and which President we liked it, and  was easy to see by the response what party each person belonged to. But for me, I straddled the line.

Now, I'm fairly old, and I've been alive for 11 Presidents, and I had Obama as my #3 best President during my lifetime. My favorite: JFK. He pushed the country into space, which pushed children into the fields of math and science. It was during his administration that the country surged ahead in those areas, and our school systems lead the world. He pushed for civil rights, and averted war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. All in less than 3 years, and nothing he did seemed ultra liberal or in any way conservative. My second favorite President: George H. Bush. One of two Presidents I've personally met, he kicked Saddam out of Kuwait by force, but then went along with other world leaders in going no farther. He got a diplomatic agreement with most of the world to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, and when that was done, the mission was done. Troops came home, or back to units they came from. This is something neither his son or Obama has been able to do. He also put the country above his party, the GOP, when he saw where the deficit was headed and raised taxes. It cost him a second term, and as such is something that will never happen during a time of divided government again. Then I have Obama, who has brought the country back from the brink of a depression, killed bin Laden, and got health care for all Americans. This while the GOP has refused to work with him in any way.

So my top 3 Presidents during my lifetime are 2 Democrats and one Republican, a party that died a few years back. But I still think this shows me to be a moderate thinking man. Unfortunately, that also makes me just about extinct in the political field now, and that's sad.        

Recent history doesn't favor the GOP.

There has been a lot of chatter on social networks that the GOP can't be racists since it was the Democrats who actually were members of the KKK. If you go back far enough, that's true. But recent history isn't as nice to the GOP as they would like it to be.

If you go back in history to the start of the KKK, back in the late 1860s, it's obvious that those in the hoods were, almost totally, Democrats. The Republican Party, led by Lincoln, was the party pushing for abolition. But even Lincoln had to wait for a victory to announce the Emancipation Proclamation due to questions about slavery in the GOP. So immediately after the Civil War, it was the northern Democrats that were carpetbaggers, and those in the south that still believed in states rights and slavery couldn't be in the Party of Lincoln, and they were Democrats. And over the next 100 years, however, a schism in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party emerged. For those Democrats from the north, soon after the turn of the century, they believed that government was need to stop the excess of big business, and leveling the playing field for everyone. Southern Democrats rallied behind their belief in religion and states rights. The GOP, their stronghold in the north, were for big businesses. Behind the northern Democrats, they were able to pass the New Deal, and after WWII, de-segregate the military. This act by President Truman caused the rift between northern and southern Democrats that became the push by the GOP for their Southern Strategy after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act was passed in the mid 1960s. By this time, the GOP had only big business in their corner. They hadn't won the White House with a true member of the GOP (Eisenhower in 1952 was asked to run by both the GOP and the Democratic Party) since before the Great Depression. How to gain the White House, the GOP asked themselves. Their answer has lead to the 2 political parties that we know today. They would try to push dis-satisfied southern Democrats, who disliked the way both the Democratic Party and the federal government was over-riding states rights, to vote for them. Big business already wanted the federal government out of their lives, so the GOP, which started as the party for federal government outlawing states rights over slavery, became the small or no federal government party, giving southern states their rights to nullify federal laws, and against laws regulating businesses.

So, if you go back far enough in history, it was the Democratic Party that was against equal rights for all Americans. But recent history doesn't favor the GOP, who for the last 40 years has pushed for states rights nullifying federal laws, since those states rights have their background in segregation and racism.              

GOP: We'll mis-remember JFK, thank you very much.

The GOP has decided now that since almost everyone has such a strong, warm feeling for John F. Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of his death, they'll remember him as a conservative. But GOP, you're not remembering JFK, you're mis-remembering him.

For some reason, the GOP has put out a narrative this week that our 35th President was, and would be today, a conservative. Just so I know, GOP, was it the fact that he called Martin Luther King, Jr. when he was in jail that lead you to believe he'd be conservative today? Or was it the fact that he forced the University of Alabama to de-segregate, and pushed the federal government over states' rights that showed he wasn't a liberal? Maybe you think that he'd go against Teddy and the entire Kennedy family, and everything he stood for, and everything the family still stand for. After all, he didn't have Bobby with him every step of the way, and appoint him Attorney General, did he?

The GOP is like the rest of the country and looking back at the life and death of our 35th President, John F. Kennedy. But just like the rest of their ideas, they can't even get this right. But at least they're consistent. They can't get anything correct about what America is right now, why should we expect anything different when they look at the past?      

Why do you hate the President, GOP?

A letter to our local paper, The Kansas City Star, yesterday, was written by a local woman who gave the reasons why she opposes President Obama. She then conclude that race had nothing to do with it, and that people shouldn't be calling other people names. So, I wondered why she felt this way about the President. These are what she stated were her objections, and my answers to her. There are also other things that I'm adding here, as I have no limit on words I can use, and the paper has a 200 word limit.

She stated that she hated Obamacare (The ACA) and the auto bailout. I wondered, does she not like government regulations and tax breaks for companies? Does she think the government has no responsibility for what happens to millions of Americans if the economy collapses? Does she think all government regulations should be struck down, and no tax breaks given to companies? If so, does she hate the GOP for all the tax breaks and loopholes the oil companies have? If not, why? Is it just these things she's against?

She also stated that she disagrees with trying terrorists in civilian courts. So, she disagreed with both Clinton and George W. Bush, who had terrorists tried in civilian courts, right? She added she hated the expanding federal government. But, in fact, there are now 1000 fewer civilians working for the government than there was in 2004, the smallest amount in the Bush administration. She also hates the burgeoning debt under Obama. Did she feel the same way with Bush, who turned surplus budgets into massive debts?

She wrote that she hated that President Obama apologized to our enemies. Now, does she mean she hates that we opened up a dialogue with Iran, or is she talking about the truthful speech he gave in Egypt stating past administrations' actions and apologizing for those that were illegal and stopped the will of the people from electing their own leaders? She really doesn't think either is good for our country?

Shen then went on to write her dislike for the President's failed economic plan and the increasing dependency of people on the federal government. But really, since the GOP took the House in 2010, what economic plan has gotten through? In fact, she hates the fact that the GOP has ceased having a plan to get people back to work. They can't pass a transportation bill to rebuild roads and bridges, they can't pass a farm bill, other than to give big companies subsidies. This is part of the reason so many need the help of the government. And does she really want programs like Meals on Wheels and Head Start slashed?  

She concluded with Solyndra and Jeremiah Wright. Again, she doesn't believe that government should help companies. That's her prerogative, but in giving some businesses tax breaks while denying them to others, wasn't government already trying to decide winners and losers? Why did this start to bother her under Obama? And with Jeremiah Wright, isn't she saying that the racial makeup and background of his Christian reverend does bother her?

The lady who wrote the letter stating that race had nothing to do with her dislike with the President finished it with saying she doesn't like his black reverend. And throughout her letter, she stated that she disliked the President for doing things other Presidents did, and for some things that actually aren't true. So, when you get down to it, why is it you hate President Obama, GOP? Are you sure there isn't a deeper reason, and yet one that is only skin deep?              

Nationally, Christie is walking a very thin line.

Chris Christie won the election for his 2nd term Tuesday, giving a speech that was nothing but a "I'm running for the Presidency in 2016" speech. It took everyone of the far right Tea Party hopefuls for 2016 1 day to attack him. But in truth, Christie is walking a very thin line if he has any national aspirations.

In truth, Christie has views that, for the most part, are right in line with the Tea Party. But in defending himself from the right, he'll have to worry about voters not only on the left, but Independents and moderates in the GOP. These are just some of his views, and what he'll lose when he states them to the Tea Party:
-- He doesn't believe in abortion. For every Tea Party voter who will accept that view, he'll probably lose 2 votes, 1 from the middle and one from the left.
-- Christie believes in slashing education funds, and hates teachers who oppose these cuts. No, not just their union, but teachers themselves. For every vote he gets from the Tea Party, he'll lose 2 on the left and 1 in the middle.
-- Christie only accepted same-sex marriage in New Jersey because the state supreme court said he had to. Since he didn't take it to the Supreme Court, he'll lose probably 10 votes for every vote he gains from the Tea Party. They simply won't care how he felt, only that they'll hate that he didn't go any farther.

To top this off, 75% of New Jersey residents who were affected by Superstorm Sandy disapprove of his handling of the relief efforts. When this gets out to the national audience, Christie will probably lose millions of potential voters without gaining 1 vote from the Tea Party. They won't care about the money, except to be mad he accepted it and shook the President's hand.

If Chris Christie is running for the Presidency in 2016, he'll have to run on a very thin line. Every step he takes to prove he's a true conservative will lose him many voters, with no guarantee of Tea Party acceptance. No matter how much weight he loses, and I don't put his weight against him, that's going to be an easy wire for him to fall off of in 2016.            

Day-after election general thoughts.

Tuesday night really didn't throw any surprises in a true off-off year election. But that's didn't mean there aren't a few trends, and I have a few thoughts.

--- To no one's surprise, Chris Christie won a second term as New Jersey's governor, and for the life of me, I really don't understand why. This is a governor in a very Democratic state that has cut education funds, although a judge did put some of the money back in the budget, vetoed his own gun control bill after talking to the NRA, and refused to allow same-sex marriages until the state Supreme Court forced him to. The Democrats in New Jersey, for the most part, have rolled over for him, and the Democratic nominee for the governorship was right to call out her party. If the Democrats in the US Congress acted like those in New Jersey, the Affordable Care Act would have been defunded last month. Shame on them. And Democratic voters who voted for Christie and passed a minimum wage hike that Christie vetoed, shame on you. So you like the Governor, but don't like his policies?
--- Democrat Terry McAuliffe won the Virginia governor's race, making it the the first time in over 30 years that the party that was in the White House won the governorship. But in a lot of ways, it was a very sobering victory for Democrats. Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP nominee, was thought to be as far right as a politician could be, except for the Lieutenant Governor nominee, and he came within 4 points of winning. To the Tea Party, this won't be thought of as a loss, but as a back-stabbing by the GOP establishment, who pulled their money out of the race in the last week. Exit polling confirms this, as 25% of the Cuccinelli voters said that if he lost, it was because he wasn't right-wing enough. They won't blame his far right-wing views, but the establishment GOP.
--- A moderate GOPer beat a Tea Party backed GOP nominee in the GOP run-off in Alabama's #01 US Congressional district. Much is being made that the establishment GOP beat the Tea Party. But that district is in Mobile, AL, one of the few big towns in Alabama, and the home of a naval base. Simply, I think that if a moderate GOPer can't win in that kind of district, then they're dead all over the south. And with only a 4 point win, they're pretty close to dead right now.
--- The Tea Party not only didn't learn any lessons from Tuesday night, they're getting meaner and nastier. The Tea Party Nominee in Alabama refused to back the winner in the general election, and Cuccinelli has refused, so far, to talk to McAuliffe congratulating him. They're (The Tea Party) not going anywhere for a long time, and they have no desire to get along, even with those in their own party.

Tuesday night, several elections played big roles in the make-up of the country. But in most ways, it looks like it's just like it was Monday night. Most people don't like the Tea Party, and the Tea Party doesn't care. Their goal is to nullify every federal law they can, and last night was just a step along the way for them. It's everyone's job to stop them.  
  

Governing's a bitch, isn't it, GOP?

The House of Representatives this week set the work schedule for 2014 at 113 days. Yes, Speaker Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership decided at 10 days a month at work is too much, so they set the bar at 9.5 days a month. But don't worry GOP, you probably won't work that many days. Why?

Well, the rest of the year, the House is scheduled to work 16 days. but the House leadership says that they probably won't be in sessions that many days because there's nothing for them to do. My answer to that: Nothing to do, you lazy jackasses? So to you, America doesn't need more jobs, or roads don't need to be fixed, or a farm bill doesn't need to get passed? That's not even saying anything about immigration, which is just sitting on your desk after the Senate passed it. I guess you don't care about any of those things, do you?

For the rest of the year, the House may not work the 16 days they're scheduled. Next year, they're only scheduled to work 113 days. Governing's a real pain in the ass to you, isn't it, GOP?    

Raise the minimum wage NOW!

There is a lot of talk about raising the minimum wage, and most of the talk is either how companies can't afford it and how it will start a round of inflation, or it needs to be raised to a living wage. When looking at a couple of facts, not conjecture, it's hard to see where either of the first two things would happen, and the last is definitely true.

Since job loss from the financial collapse of 2008/2009 bottomed out , 61% off all jobs gains have been minimum wage or just slightly higher. This means that it isn't just teenagers and first-time workers who are getting these jobs, but everyday Americans who were fired from middle-wage jobs that are taking these jobs. Now, I'm not suggesting that these jobs go for their current scales to $40,000 a year jobs, but that the salaries have to get to at least a living wage, maybe $10-11 an hour. Now, some might say that companies that have these jobs can't survive if salaries are raised that high. But in companies that pay these wages, retail and restaurant stores, wages are only 18% of expenses. So how would wage increases that made wages just 20 or 21% of expenses break a company? Most economists agree that companies could pass those costs to customers with little to no problems. One study says a McDonald's Meal Deal would go up by less than 70 cents, and most family-type restaurants would increase their meals less than a dollar. Retail costs to consumer, since most outlets do bigger business, would be increased no more than a Big Mac Meal. It's hard to see where inflation would run rampant, and several studies say the economy is so big, it would increase inflation by less than 1%.

When you look at facts and studies, it's easy to see that million of Americans need the minimum wage to increase, and it would have little effect on the economy. And there is even a few studies that show that when the minimum wage is raised, certain things like SNAP and money to the poor would actually be less needed, and it would help the deficit. So Congress, why aren't you looking at raising the minimum wage? It needs to be raised NOW!         

Secretary Sebelius and the House GOP.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went to House and got grilled by the GOP. But I wish she had gone after Marsha Blackburn with both guns, and I know how she could have done it.

Marsha Blackburn, the GOP representative form Tennessee, said that several of her constituents complained that their policies had been cancelled. She said, "Some people like a Ford and some like a Ferrari, and some like red Solo cups, not crystal stem. You're taking away their choice." I really wish Secretary Sebelius would have said, " Would you advice those constituents to buy a Ford with no lights, or a red Solo cup with a crack halfway down it? You could use both of those, but they aren't completely useful. Well, if not, then why would you advice a person to buy a basically useless policy? The ACA set standards, just like cars and even cups have. And there are 4 levels of coverage everyone can buy, so they have choices. So Representative, are you saying there shouldn't be any standards for anything to buy, or that insurance companies should be different from other products and they should be able to continue to fleece some of their customers?" She could have sat back and she'd still probably be waiting for an answer. And Democrats would flock behind her, and the GOP would still be trying to answer her.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went to the House and spoke about the ACA. She did well, but I wish I had sent this to her before she went to the hill.    

Think insurance companies like the ACA? Think again.

It was thought by some that the insurance companies, since they worked on the legislation and got to keep their companies under the ACA, would be okay with the act. But they're showing exactly what they think of the ACA in these cancellation policies.

Many people, maybe a couple of millions, are getting notices that starts by saying that the company, due to the ACA, is cancelling their health insurance policy. Now, that is technically true, but in fact, those getting this letter, which it later says, is eligible to get another policy under the ACA. But wouldn't it have been better, and in my mind, much better company customer relations, if that letter said at the beginning that under the ACA, the policy they have no longer meets minimum standards, and then said they could come in or call to get more information and the new rates. In other words, in stating the truth in the worst possible light and only then telling them of new policies and the rates, which may be subsidized but they're never told that. Which company would you rather work with, one that stated the case and tried to help you get subsidies, or one that tries to scare you and puts fear into you? But just like their policies that really did nothing for people that bought them, the company is trying to scare people into bad decisions. Have you noticed that this is only happening with individuals and not companies? That's because companies were never offered these shoddy policies, because the insurance companies knew that to keep these companies as customers, they needed to offer them health policies that worked. Insurance companies never worried about that with individuals.

It was thought having another 30 million customers would help the insurance companies accept the ACA. Obviously, insurance companies don't like the ACA. That's the only way a person can look at the letters they're sending to individual policy holders.      

GOP: Think we've given up? Ha!!!!!

For anyone who thought that the GOP had learned a lesson from the debacle that was the government shutdown, the GOP wants you to know that they still have no plans to have a federal government. First they'll continue with getting this one not working, and then they'll shut down the whole thing for good. Don't believe me? First it was Senator Ted Cruz that said that he'd shut down the government again in January if he thought it would get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Then, Senator Lindsey Graham said that he planned on blocking every appointment in the Senate until another hearing on Benghazi called be called and every survivor speaks. This while several federal judges and the lead lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board is scheduled for a vote soon. Now, Senator Marco Rubio has told the rest of the GOP that they need to vote against the Immigration Act bill that has passed the Senate. The fact that the bill is actually HIS bill means he now is begging the GOP to vote against himself. If that's not the picture next to the definition of dysfunction, it needs to be.

For some, it was thought that the GOP learned something for the government shutdown they caused. Well, if they did learn anything, they learned that they really want the federal government shutdown for good, and they'll do anything to make it happen.            

Don't get too happy, Democrats.

It seems to most that the GOP is basically becoming a very regional, right-wing political party. But Democrats, I wouldn't get too happy quite yet. And for both the GOP and Democrats, you have Harry Reid to thank for that.

Senator Olympia Snowe today said that she's worried that if the Democrats win the House in 2014, they would be "psychotic". Now, I'm not sure how in the world the Democrats could be anywhere close to how psychotic and dumb the GOP has become, but this is one area Senator Snowe shouldn't worry, and she should thank Senate Leader harry Reid for that. Why? Simply, even if the Democrats get control of the House, after the House passed a bill, all one GOP Senator would have to do is filibuster any non-budget bill or any appointment that came up. The Democrats can't win so many seats that the Senate would be filibuster-proof, which the Senate basically was in 2010. Think Cruz, Lee, or Paul wouldn't filibuster every bill that the Senate tried to pass if they know there's no GOP-controlled House to stop the bill from passing? Heck, Cruz right now has a hold on the head of the FCC because he wants to make sure that political ads won't tell who's behind them any more than they do now.

How strange would it be if Democrats took the House and due to a minority of Senators, the government is just as dysfunctional as it is right now. And who would the country have to thank for that? Harry Reid, who for 2 years has refused to back filibuster reform. Don't get too happy, Democrats. Winning the election in 2014 may not solve all your or the country's ills.      

Is politicizing heart surgery really a good idea?

Senator Imhofe of Oklahoma last week went to a doctor and, after a few tests, it was revealed that he needed heart surgery quickly. He got it done, and I hope he is in good health. But Senator, did you really have to politicize your surgery? And, if you needed to, can you explain why you lied and missed the point, almost at the same time?

Senator Imhofe, after his surgery, said that if he fell under the ACA, he'd probably be dead before he could've had the surgery. Now, I can't state if that's true or not, although I really completely doubt it, but Senator, you missed the point of the ACA completely. The point is that every American should be able to go see a doctor and get checked out, just like you did. Before the ACA was enacted, insurance companies could decide to exclude anyone they felt might present a foreseeable problem, excluding those with pre-insurance signings conditions. They also had the right to cap how much they would spend on each patient they insured. That is now gone, too. Then the Senator said that we shouldn't mess up the best health care in the world. If we had the best health care in the world, I'd agree. But considering that Senator Imhofe knows full well that America ranks last in NATO when health care is ranked, and 37th over-all in the world, I can only surmise that, Senator, you knowingly lied. I know where I got my rankings Senator, where did you get yours?

Senator Imhofe needed heart surgery recently, and I really do hope he's doing much better now. But Senator, was it really a good idea to politicize your surgery?        

Would you make up your mind, GOP.

For the life of me, I have no idea what the GOP is trying to say most of the time. But when it come to the ACA, they really are bending over backwards to take every side they can.

To start with, the GOP wants the ACA to go away, and as quickly as possible. Then, they complain that the system to sign in isn't running well enough. Okay GOP, which one is it? You can'r complain that you want a system gone but complain it isn't running well enough. But then, to top it off, they want Secretary of HHS, the department that is running the ACA, to be fired for not having the site running well. But, wasn't the HHS one of the Cabinet departments that you wanted to eliminate? Again GOP, what do you want?

Secondly, Former Vice-President Dick Cheney this weekend railed against the deficit. But wait, weren't you part of the Reagan administration that said deficits weren't bad? Then, as Vice-President, didn't you and Bush #43 cut taxes and run 2 wars, which was mostly kept of the books so the American people wouldn't see the deficits the administration was accumulating? You surely can't argue one way, run the government the same way, but then change sides and complain when other administrations do the same thing, can you? Actually, after meeting you back in the 80s, maybe you could.

Then, there's Steve Lonegan, who lost the New Jersey Senate election, had the nerve to say after the election last Wednesday that he thought so little of the Senate that he doesn't understand why anyone would run for a seat and was glad he lost. Huh? You just spent several months running, and now you're glad you lost? But wait! Today, you said the only reason you lost was due to the government shutdown. Want to try that again, Steve? Which way do you it, that it you wanted to win, that it doesn't matter if you that you lost, or you could have won if things had worked out different?

I normally don't understand why the GOP takes the view they take on many issues. But it really makes it tough when you take all sides of an argument and complain about all of the sides the next day. Really GOP, would you make up your mind? At least then, you'll only be wrong about 1 side of an argument.  

Why would America want a third party when we already have 3?

Tow things that America learned Wednesday night as we waited to see if the government would reopen is, one, that we don't need to a third party. In fact, we already have 3 political parties, but most people can only vote for one of two of them. And the second thing is, the GOP is still lying to America about the Tea Party. But what's really sad is that after Wednesday night, most people will only vote for one of the parties, no matter who's on the ballot.

Don't think there's 3 parties already? Well, both the Democratic party and the establishment GOP party never wanted a default, and tried to get their members to vote for a clean CR. So who were the 18 people in the Senate and the 144 people in the House who voted against the CR and to have America default on the debt? That's the Tea Party, the third political party in America. It's true that except in rare circumstances no Americans will see all 3 parties on a ballot, all 3 showed themselves Wednesday night.

So after Wednesday night, why is the establishment arm of the GOP saying that there are just 20 to 30 members of the Tea Party that tried to keep the government closed. Now, the Democrats are mimicking this number, but it makes no sense for them to tamp down the numbers, but it does for the establishment GOP. They don't want America to know that the Tea Party has taken over the GOP, although it's obvious to anyone who has paid attention, or add. In the Senate, 18 of the 45 GOP Senators, or 40%, are actually Tea Party members. In the House, 144 out of 234 GOP Representatives voted for default, meaning 60% are Tea Party members. The Tea Party may not be the majority party, but the vote Wednesday showed they are a powerful political minority party. They're so powerful, in fact, that in most places, they're pushing out the establishment GOP.  

Now, the saddest thing is that, after Wednesday night, in a large part of America, people won't vote for either the Democrat or the Tea Party. In the deep south, and in most rural mid-west and western areas in America, they either see no need for the government or truly hate it, and they'll never vote for Democrat. And since in those areas the Tea Party is ousting the establishment GOP, that means they'll vote for the Tea Party. But after Wednesday night, and the 16 day government shutdown, in almost all other areas in America, after what the Tea Party/GOP did, they won't vote for anyone but the Democratic Party. So while there may be 3 political parties, most only trust 1 to do what they think America needs. And that's really sad.    

GOP: Running the government is humiliating to us.

Want to know how far right the GOP has gone and how little they want a federal government? If you listen to them today, the fact that they are having to vote to simply run the government for 90 days at the budget numbers they want, not at the level Democrats want, is a humiliation. Really, GOP, this is what it has gotten down for you? You hate the government so much that simply doing what you're suppose to do and keep the government open, your basic job description and duty of the office, is a step down for you? What are you doing in politics then? Your basic belief is that the 50 states should run themselves, right? Then say it! Don't beat around the bush and say that there's things you like, and then try and shut everything down. If you're right and the country agrees with you, then stop trying to gerrymander districts and stop people from voting. If you think it's humiliating to run the government, imagine how the country feels about how you're leading us. Or, actually, not leading us.      

Today, I'm ashamed to be a veteran.

This afternoon, there was a protest in Washington billed as a million veteran march, and from what I've seen, read, and heard, this is a day I'm actually ashamed to be associated with vets.

The march today didn't show the full scale of what all veterans feel or think, but the fact that any vet would be part of a march where confederate flags would be flown is simply appalling to me. So vets, what part of the old confederacy do you want, the racism, the slavery, or the desire to secede from America, and which do you find appealing and want to have happen? If this is the way you feel, why did you fight for this country? Yes, there were vets from before the military became all-voluntary, many in fact. But why are you proud that you served a country that you don't believe in. Want to march without your veteran's hat and/or gear on, fine. I'll disagree with you, but it's your right. But stand up as a member of the military, even retired or just vet, and you must reflect the country. Letting people yell to a christian President to "Go home and read your Koran" is simply letting the haters and the racist win the day. Did you do that when you were in the military? Not like you did today, I'm sure.

Today, I was ashamed to be a veteran. Actually, I wasn't ashamed that I am a veteran, I was ashamed of all the veterans today that decided to show people that they hate America, and how I'm now painted with their broad brush. It was a sad day, both for vets and those who look to the military for a light on how people should treat each other. It's too bad that vets reflect America, the good and the bad. But the good wasn't on display today, only the bad.      

Let's give Boehner some credit.

While I have ripped the GOP no end, I actually do have to give Speaker John Boehner credit for one thing: He has seen that the GOP is now a far-right party, and as leader of the party, has moved to the right so he could keep his leadership position in the party. After all, it's tough to lead a group when they won't follow you. It's damn near impossible when they aren't even on the same path that you're on.

While those in Washington and on Wall Street have just came to realization that there's a schism in the GOP, Speaker Boehner came to the realization that there is no schism in the GOP any more, and moved to where the power in the party is now. He sees that while some think that there the GOP is trying to decide which way it wants to go in the future, in truth, the far-right fridge of the GOP in the mid 2000s is now the middle of the party and where the power is in the GOP. Like it or not, he's seen the way the wind is blowing in the GOP and moved to where the wind is now.

Some people believe that the Speaker of the House should work for the country, and in truth, the Speaker and all members of Congress should work for the good of the majority of Americans. But Speaker Boehner knows that he is the ranking member of the GOP, the one with the most governmental power, and he now has moved to reflect the belief that the majority of his party has now. It's not his fault that the GOP doesn't want to be a national party or govern anymore. He has just moved with the party, and for that Speaker Boehner has to be given some credit.    

Even in a crisis, GOP has to lie.

The GOP just can't help but lie, can they? Texas Senator John Cornyn got on national TV today and said that voting for a "clean" CR and a "clean" debt limit increase would be giving the President a "blank check." Senator, do you even know what a blank check is? Approving a CR would keep the government open, but it would have an over-all limit, and each department would also have a limit on what they could spend. A debt limit increase would have an amount they government could go into debt, but could go no farther. Is that really a blank check, Senator? No, of course not. A blank check says "Spend what you want, and you have no limit." Neither the CR or a debt limit increase says that. Really, Senator Cornyn, even in a time of crisis like this, do you and the rest of the GOP have to lie?

So what do you really want, Speaker?

Two months ago, Speaker Boehner said that there would be no reason for the government to shut down or not approve a new debt ceiling. Two weeks ago, he stated that the government might have to shut down so that the Affordable Care Act could be stopped, but that there was no reason not to increase the debt limit. A week ago, the Speaker told reporters that it was true that, in fact, the Affordable Care Act actually couldn't be stopped, and that the shutdown was actually about the growing federal budget. It didn't matter that in the 2014 budget, the Democrats went 90% of the way to the GOP number, and both sides agreed to that number. Then yesterday, the Speaker said that he refused to put to a vote either a clean CR or a clean debt increase bill. So Speaker, this really isn't about the Affordable Care Act, and it can'r be about the budget, since both Democrats and majority of the GOP agree on the size of the budget for next year. Now, would you please tell the American people what you and the GOP really want? Tell the American people what the actually end game of all this really is for the GOP. It's to get rid of the federal government, isn't it? Come on, Speaker, tell us the truth about what you really want.        

Does the GOP want to be a regional party?

As the government shutdown continues, there are a few in the GOP in the House that are saying enough is enough. Over a dozen GOP House members have said that they'll vote for a clean CR if it came up for a vote. Less than a dozen more, and the clean CR would come up for a vote. But why would a few Congressmen go against their party? Simply, these Congressmen are mainly from the northeast, although some are from the west and the mid-west, and they know that every day they agree to keep the government shutdown, they lose thousands voters. And these voters won't just not vote for them, but they won't vote for any GOP candidate for years. So, to them, the question is, do you stay with our party now and ensure the GOP becomes a regional party, or do they do what their constituents wants and stay relevant in politics?    

Every day the GOP keeps the government stays shutdown, the GOP is losing voters in the northeast, the west, and the mid-west, and Congressmen there can see it. So, is the GOP trying to be a regional party that can't win national elections, or is that just a bi-product of their stupidity?    

The GOP has their beer goggles on.

Listening to the GOP today, I swear they are just like a man late at night after a few drinks in a bar-- The GOP has their beer goggles on. To listen the GOP, they are fighting for those that elected them in 2010, the entire country agrees with them, and no one who disagrees with them knows anything about facts and figures, and feel the other side is ethically wrong and morally bankrupt. The Tea Party simply can't see the truth: The ACA was the central issue of the 2012 election, and they lost. They lost the Presidency, lost seats in the Senate, and although they held the house, 1.5 million more people voted for the Democrats than for the GOP. Also, so far, everything that the GOP has railed against in the ACA has been proven false. Insurance rates are going to be less for 98% of Americans under the ACA than they were before the law was enacted. There are no "Death Panels". And instead of blowing a whole in the budget, the ACA will actually save money. Finally, those that don't see the world as the same way as the Tea Party do simply see the world differently. There is no hole automatically in their heads, hearts, or souls.

Just like a man in a bar late at night after a few drinks, the GOP can't see the truth right in front of them, and can only see things the way they wish they were. The GOP has their beer goggles on. Too bad they'll still have them on in the morning.        

Tea Party: This is war, and we must win it at all cost.

To the GOP/Tea Party, this action tonight isn't about running the country. To them, this is war, pure and simple. And unfortunately, I can only think of 1 analogy that works.

It was rhetorically asked today by 1 reporter in a tweet, "Why don't the GOP understand that to the Democrats that sequestration was the compromise?" Well, what the reporter missed is that to the GOP, this is a war, and the other side must be annihilated. To them, the GOP is one country, and everyone else is an enemy country. And sequestration was a truce between the two countries. And the GOP was like a country that gave up some of its military so that the Democrats country would give it some of the Democrats' land. Now, 2 years later, the GOP nation says if the Democrats' country don't give them more of its land, they'll take it over by force. I hate to say it, but it sure seems that only analogy I can think of that comes close to being appropriate to show the GOP action is 1930s Europe, and that means the GOP is playing Germany, and the rest of the country is the rest of Europe. I wish I could think of another parallel, but I really can't.

To the GOP, this is war, and it's a war they feel they have to win. To them, his isn't 1 country, but 2 separate nations. And that other nation must be defeated and taken over. Too bad we've seen this action before, and what happened wasn't pretty. I'm afraid it won't be very pretty, again.        

GOP: We are the Tea Party, not those squishy Rs!!!!

The GOP, in a final attempt to show the nation that it is is now the Tea Party, has added another demand in their push to defund the Affordable Care Act, has acted to limit women's access to contraception. Yes, to the GOP, women having access to birth control is part of the budget. But in a way, that wasn't bad enough. No, when the House GOP voted in a caucus to force a showdown with the President, there was such a cheer in the chamber that it could be heard out in the halls by all the reporters. Then, when one of the GOP House members stepped out to talk to reporters, he said this bill proved that the GOP was winning. He then said that with this bill, they had boxed the Democratic Party into a corner, and the GOP was in a win-win situation. So, limiting birth control or shutting down the government is a win-win scenario?

Think Ronald Reagan thought not compromising, forcing the country into a take-it or leave- it situation, and a shut-down of government was governing? That's right, this isn't your parent's GOP. This is now the Tea Party, and to them, if you don't like it, lump it.  

GOP makes demands to continue funding federal government

Well, the GOP finally did it. They finally gave the President a list of demands, and without these demands being made, the federal government would shut down. If that's not hostage taking, with the country as the hostages, I don't know what is.

The GOP sent to the President a list of demands, and if the President doesn't agree to these demands, they simply will refuse to sign a budget or raise the debt ceiling. What were the demands? Well, without making a full list, they basically said that the President must, as much as possible, undo every action President Obama has ever done, and act like a member of the Tea Party. To start with, the Affordable Health Care Act must be delayed or completely defunded. The new Dodd-Frank financial rules? Gone. The new Consumer Protection bureau? Gone. Restrictions on oil drilling on federal lands? Gone. The Keystone Pipeline has to be approved. Getting the idea yet? There are other actions the President would have to take, but I think you get the idea. It was so bad, some were wondering why they hadn't added a Birther Bill. Then, just to put more oil on the fire, after President Obama announced that he had spoken with the Iranian President. The GOP then demand to know why the President hadn't talked to Speaker Boehner in the last week. One phone call in 34 years to Iran, and the GOP wants to know why the President wants to know why the President and the Speaker won't talk every week? What for, to be told what the demands of the GOP are?

The GOP gave the President a list of demands yesterday to keep the government running. They may not be able to legislate, but they obviously passed Hostage Taking 101 with flying colors.  

Does Senator Cruz ever make sense?

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas got on the Senate floor Tuesday night to filibuster against the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But, it wasn't a filibuster, it won't stop the Act, and very little that he said made sense. As a matter of, does anything he says make sense?

Senator Ted Cruz got on the Senate floor and talked for over 20 hours. Was it a filibuster to stop a bill? No. Then he got on the floor and spoke of the ACA and likened it to the holocaust. So Senator, how is 30 million people getting insurance like Germany killing million of people because they believed in the Jewish religion? If that wasn't dumb and stupid enough, he said that Neville Chamberlain told England in the 40s that Hitler needed to be appeased because he couldn't be defeated. Senator, it was in the 30s that Chamberlain signed a treaty that gave Germany land, and said to the English people that he agreed to the treaty because Hitler said that was the only land they wanted. Later, when Hitler and Germany continued to attack other countries, Chamberlain resigned in disgrace. Again, you made no sense. Then you quoted Green eggs and Hams, saying that this shows that if the country tries the ACA, it would be addicted to it. No, the story is about not liking something because you haven't tried it. Again, you make no sense. Then, you state that nobody in America follow politicians in Washington because of their cheap suits. So, exactly what were you doing speaking for over 20 hours if no body in America listens to you? Again, you make no sense. Finally, when you're done, you're asked what you accomplished. You state that you wanted to show America that they could get rid of the ACA. No Senator, you got up and talked so far-right idiots could watch you and give you money. Again, you lied.

Senator Cruz got up on the Senate floor and lied and made no sense for over 20 hours. Senator Cruz, do you ever make sense?      

Senator Cruz: The majority can not have its way!

The "so-called" filibuster by Senator Ted Cruz has shown the one belief that the GOP has now that it will never give up: The majority can not have its way!

Senator Ted Cruz is basically making speeches so that the Senate cannot take a vote on cloture on the CR budget bill. What does that mean? Simply, a cloture vote means that the majority of the Senators can pass the bill before it. Senator Cruz wants the 60 vote threshold to pass the bill. Yes, in effect, Senator Cruz again is saying that the majority has no right to rule on funding a law. Now, this really isn't anything new for the GOP in the last 3 years. And not just in the Senate. While the Senate has for the last 3 years worked under the 60 vote threshold, making it easy to see that the minority is impeding the majority, in fact, it has been effect throughout the legislature since 2010. While the House has been held by the GOP since 2010, it was actually Democrats who won the most House votes in 2012, getting over 2 million votes nation-wide than the GOP. And, of course, President Obama won the election by more than 4 million votes. So, in trying to stop President Obama from acting on all type of things, the GOP is basically saying that the majority in America have no right to have what it wants done in the country.

Senator Ted Cruz stated a basic GOP truth when he stated that he was going to do everything he could so that the majority of Senators could get a bill passed. Sarah Palin, when talking about Cruz, stated an ever deeper truth: Ted Cruz is a tool.        

Did the Romans know that Rome was falling?

In the last 2 weeks, we've seen some incredible things in the country, but nothing worthwhile in Congress. But that just continues the trend that has been going on for the last several years.

In the last 2 weeks-
-- When the President went to Congress to get authorization to attack Syria, GOP Congressmen asked the Secretary of State why the people in Benghazi wasn't saved. That happened over 14 months ago, and the report has been out for over 6 months.
-- When 13 people were killed on a Navy base, the NRA asked why it took 7 minutes for the police to show up. They didn't say that gun laws needed to be looked at. And Congress in its budget has slashed the budget for police and firemen the last 2 years, and has slashed even more money in its budget for next year.
-- 33 people were killed by guns in Chicago one night. Not one word from Congress.
-- 10 stores in Maryland were found to misuse the food stamp program. So what did Congress do? They slashed 5% of the food stamp program, so that more poor people would starve.
-- Rain has made parts of Colorado a torrent of killing creeks. Dozens were killed, and thousands were displaced. Now, 2 Colorado congressmen did ask for federal help, but these were 2 of the many people who said that no money should to help those affected by Super-storm Sandy, although millions were affected and left homeless for months.
-- The deficit continues to drop at record rates. The GOP answer: Let's shut down the government if the Affordable Care Act isn't defunded. And if it is, more money needs to be slashed from the federal budget.

But that is just the latest moves by the worst Congress ever.
-- Our roads and bridges are crumbling, but the GOP refuses to pass a transportation bill.
-- Our schools, once the way out of poverty for millions of Americans, now are priced out of reach for all but the richest in the country. And even basic schooling is under fire from religious groups that want sciences like evolution taken out, while other groups want global warming struck from the curriculum.
-- Our trains, once the best in the world, now go the same speed that they did 60 years ago. Our fastest trains, which only run in a small northeast corridor, run 2/3 the speed of bullet trains in Europe and Asia.


I look at all that has happened, and how little Congress will do to help re-build the country after the 2nd worst monetary crisis in the country's history, and I have to ask: Did the Romans know how weak Rome was long before Rome felt? If so, I think they must have felt like many Americans do today.    

GOP: Those that won't get SNAP payments, don't worry. We're shutting down the entire government.

The GOP House voted Thursday to cut $40 billion from the food stamp program (SNAP), cutting 4 million poor, working Americans out of the safety net. Now, the GOP said, to start with, that there was that much fraud in the system. They used the Baltimore stores that were giving cash to those who handed the stores their food stamps to show how much fraud is in the system. I guess that the GOP thinks that since store are illegally manipulating the system, the way to stop that is to take the food coupon away from poor people so the stores can't abuse them. But then, the GOP decided that screwing poor people wasn't enough. They then took actions that will either stop 30 million Americans from getting health care, or they will shut down the government, affecting over 100 million Americans. So, in a way, the GOP told the 4 million that they want to take food out of their months: Don't worry, we aren't just screwing you. We'll shut down the government, affecting over 100 million Americans. Now, don't you feel better now?    

For the GOP, defunding ObamaCare is their compromise position.

Many people who call themselves liberal and moderates, including most political pundits, can't understand how the GOP can take what seems the ridiculous, and very far-right, move to shutdown the government if ObamaCare is funded. Well, what they all miss is that for the GOP, that is a compromise position. Shutting down the federal government is their real desire, their perfect solution for the country.

Most pundits can't understand why the GOP keeps harping on the size of government when the the deficit spending of the government has fallen 60%. Well, the simple reason is, to the GOP, any federal budget other than for defense is too much. This is a party that doesn't want to get rid of 3 cabinet posts, it wants to get rid of the federal government's ability to oversee them. To them, Education, Commerce, and Health and Human Services should be run by the the states. The GOP doesn't care about people in large cities, so Housing and Urban Development can be eliminated. Most states run by the GOP are enacting laws to get the federal government out of elections and want federal agents to be arrested for serving gun warrants. They also want to get rid of the IRS. That takes care of the Department of Justice and the Attorney General for the GOP. Business have too many regulations on them, so after getting rid of Commerce, getting of the Department of Labor is perfectly fine with them, too. Big oil companies can do what they want, so what does the GOP need with the Departments of Energy or Agriculture? Nothing, so they can be axed. The GOP doesn't want the government to fix roads and bridges, and wants to stop all subsidies of trains and alternative modes of travel to cars. So, the GOP can get rid of the Department of Transportation. Since the two factions of the GOP either wants to isolate America from the rest of the world or bomb any country that isn't already in a treaty with the country, the Department of State can be at least downgraded and folded in the Department of Defense, if not eliminated. The Department of Homeland Security is really part of Defense, too, as is the VA, and therefore they could be folded in Defense, although they wouldn't lose money. After all, Defense contractors never lose money, do they?

For the GOP, keeping the rest of the federal government running while defunding ObamaCare is their compromise position. In a perfect country for the GOP, there would only be the Departments of Defense and Treasury, and the President would have no power over the states. Wait!! Why can't the states mint their own money? Now, that would really be a perfect country for the GOP.      

Colorado recalls show 2 election problems

The NRA is boasting about their might and power after an election that recalled 2 pro-gun control representatives in Colorado. But, in fact, the recall showed 2 election problems that need to be fix, and quickly.

While 2 pro-gun control representatives were recalled, there were 2 problems that this election showed. The first was the fact that the election was held so quickly, mail-in ballots weren't able to be sent out, and regular voting places in the 2 districts couldn't be used, so other, larger but fewer, places were used. Now, why would any election held at a time when normal election voting procedures can't be used? What this led to was a bloc of voters that only if they had a deep desire in the outcome. This meant that many of those that were happy with the status quo wouldn't take the time to find out how and where to vote. This led to over 30% fewer voters in the recall election than 3 years ago when these representatives were elected. Not a year ago during a Presidential election, but in 2010, in an off-election. The second problem shown in this election was the fact that, while money from groups against the recall out-spent the groups for the election, the Koch Bros. through their non-political PAC was able to buy ad times, and since it is a non-political group, their money is unknown. But how can any group buy ads in a recall election and call themselves non-political? This is actually the bigger problem, and needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

The NRA is proud of their result in the Colorado recall elections. Are they also proud of the way our election process was perverted?          

For GOP, their hatred for Obama doesn't stop at the water's edge.

For many years, when it came to the President and foreign affairs, there would be no speaking badly about the President. Literally, any actions taken by a President when it came to other countries would have no broaching, except in chambers and when debating a bill or a treaty. But that isn't true anymore for the GOP. When it comes to President Obama, their hatred of him can reach all the way around the world.

One of the reasons The Dixie Chicks got got such a horrible reply by so many was when they spoke against President Bush and the attack on Iraq was they did it in London. It's one thing to speak bad about a President and his domestic policies, but quite another thing to speak about his foreign country actions, and way over the line to do it in a foreign country. And remember, this was a country singing group. So why were 3 members of the GOP in the House of Representatives in Egypt saying that they were glad that the military had taken over for President Morsi? Then, they lied and said that it was the Muslim Brotherhood that had attacked America on 9/11, when in fact it was Al Qaeda, and the attack was denounced by the Muslim Brotherhood. Why would they do such a thing? Because President Obama has tried to walk a thin line between the Egyptian military and the Brotherhood. Then, after the President gave his speech on Syria Tuesday night, GOP Senator Rand Paul gave a rebuttal speech. The President give a foreign policy speech, and the GOP thinks they have to rebut it? Is this a State of the Union speech? Why would they do such a thing? Simply their hatred for the President.

Before the President's speech Tuesday night, several GOP Senators and Representatives spoke out at a rally in Washington on the need to shut down the government if the Affordable HealthCare Act wasn't de-funded. But it's not bad enough to show their hatred for the President on domestic policies, now they show their hatred all over the world, and it makes America look small and petty. It's just another way the GOP wants the entire country to seem just like them.      

So, GOP will act quickly for Syrians but not Americans?

So, the Tea Party members of the GOP agreed with the President and pushed the House and the Senate to take meetings during their summer recess. Now, many Democrats and some moderate GOP members asked that the recess be delayed so that items like jobs, the budget, immigration, and the voting rights act could be debated and votes held. But you were too busy trying to get rid of Health Care for 30 million Americans to do anything. Well, I'm sure the American people are REAL glad that you in the Tea Party section of the GOP will make extra efforts to protect Syrians, but just sit on your hands when it comes to helping Americans.

Senator Rand Paul shows his foreign affairs stupidity

Rand Paul got on Meet The Press Sunday and showed how little he understands foreign affairs, and little he's ready to take a step up in national political discussions. He stated that he was against military action in Syria, which as far as I'm concerned, is a fine stance to take. But then, he said he was glad that the President was going to delay, for this would give the UN inspectors time to give their report on what happened in Syria. Again, a fine stance. But then, he said he wanted the Obama administration to take that report and show it to Russia and China. Now, I must admit that, after this, I didn't care what he said. What could he say? For one, isn't the hatred that the GOP has for the UN the reason why the Senate refused to approve a treaty that would make all countries accept handicap laws that the America already has? Yes! But to me, that's not even the worst part. The worst part is that he doesn't understand that there's nothing in any report that will make either Russia or China to allow any action in Syria. They not only consider the Syrian regime friends, they don't care about their own people, much less those of the Syrian people. If China thinks it's okay for children and women to work in factories as de facto slaves, what makes Senator Paul think China cares about Syrians? If Putin and the Russians are allowing beating of gays and lesbians and will jail anyone who speaks out on their behalf, what could be said in a report that Putin would allow action against the Assad regime? That's right, absolutely nothing. So, why does he want the inspectors report to be seen by Russia and China? I don't know either, and but it does show how little he really knows foreign affairs, and why he's not ready for the national stage.

Syria puts GOP in a box, too.

While many are saying that President Obama is in a very tight box with Syria, and yes, he is. But what hasn't been widely reported, if at all, is that Syria has put the GOP in a box, too. And really, it's a very small box.

There is no doubt that most of the GOP has been looking to start impeachment procedures against President Obama since his re-election. Well, Syria has given them that chance, if they wanted to try. All they'd have to do is not authorize any actions against Syria, and any move by the Obama Administration in a military fashion against Syria could start the House on impeachment procedures. But then, the GOP would be going against their own neo-cons in not authorizing military action. So they won't take that actions. Others in the GOP are stating that the recent cuts in the military due to sequestration have made it impossible for the military to act. Wait, you mean the leading military in the world, and the one that still spends more than the next 4 countries, couldn't go into Syria if needed? So, you want more money for the military, but still want to cut the rest of the budget and won't raise taxes? That will make no sense to anyone, and will be an impossible sell for any GOP Senator or Representative stating that when asked those questions.

President Obama is said to be in box whether any actions are taken in Syria by the American military. But the GOP has been put in a box, too. They either back the President's move, and the left will be upset with them, or they refuse to back military action, in which case a couple groups of people will be mad at them, and probably on both sides of the political spectrum. That's a much smaller box than the President is in.    

It doesn't matter now what party Martin Luther King, Jr. was in 50 years ago.

There is a billboard in the South, Alabama I believe, that proclaims that since Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, blacks should vote for today's GOP candidates. Now, I don't know what party he was affiliated with in 1963, but really,which ever one it was, that doesn't even matter in today's political scene.

Back 50 years ago, most blacks in the south did vote Republican, since it was an original Republican, President Lincoln, that freed the slaves. Southern Democrats were called Dixiecrats, and didn't believe in equal rights for blacks. Now, this wasn't true for all Democrats, as Northern Democrats and those in the Midwest, like President Truman from Missouri who desegregated the military, believed in equal rights for all. But then, after President Kennedy forced the University of Alabama to accept black students, and a couple years later when President Johnson got the Civil Right Act and Voting Rights Act laws passed, all the Dixiecrats in the south changed parties and become Republicans. Now, this caused a schism in the GOP, and slowly but surely, what the GOP became what it is today, the anti-gay, anti-women, anti-black, anti-poor, and anti-immigration party that it is today. It is nothing like the Republican Party that was alive and well even a generation ago, and in a lot of ways, is simply the far right fringe of that GOP, and that's why I now call the GOP The Tea Party. Now, it may not be that way 50 years from now, but that's exactly what it is now.

I don't know what political party Martin Luther King, Jr. belonged to 50 years ago, and really, it doesn't matter what party he was in then. But I'm fairly sure that he would be a Democrat today, and that's what's really important.  

RNC shows Bill O'Reilly lied, and their own bias.

After Bill O'Reilly lied on his Fox News show that no conservatives or members of the GOP were asked to speak at the 50th Anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech, several places reported that the organizers had asked all 50 governors, and all sitting members of Congress were asked to speak. But then, the RNC (Tea Party National Committee), in an attempt to put the blame back on the event organizers, said that they gave the organizers at least 3 names that they could call and try to get to speak. The 3 names that were given were Senator Tim Scott, former Representative J.C. Watts, and Oklahoma Speaker of the House T.W. Shannon. Wait, aren't they all black? Well, yes. Okay, but RNC, are you saying that only black Americans can speak on injustices and poverty? If that's true, then you must believe that former Presidents Clinton and Carter had no right to speak. Or, for that matter, any of the many white speakers who were there and gave speeches.

Bill O'Reilly got on Fox News and lied about the speakers at the 50th Anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech, and the RNC, in an attempt to put blame on organizers, showed themselves to be small minded and biased. The sad part of that is, it was all just a normal day for these two.    

Fox News lies again

Bill O'Reilly once again lied to every viewer on Fox News tonight, but really, when doesn't he? He stated, in an attempt to belittle and demean the 50th anniversary of the March On Washington, that no Republicans or conservatives were asked to speak Wednesday. But, both President Bush 41 and 43 were asked, and declined due to health. Both Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor were invited to make statements, but said they had previous plans and couldn't make it. Why didn't they go? I don't know, so I won't make some ridiculous statement about them not caring about minorities. But why did O'Reilly say such a thing when it is blatantly false? Simply to stroke hatred from Fox News viewers for those that spoke today, and probably 50 years ago. I'm not surprised that he did it, just disappointed. But I shouldn't be, should I? This is really really the way he works, his modus operandi as it were (I hope I spelled that right). Why should today be any different for him than any other day.      

Fox News doctor thinks that since women and men are built differently, women should pay more.

Once again, Fox News have found a way to be the biggest jerks in the country. Why? Well, since women have boobs, they should pay more for insurance. Now, this wasn't one of their political talking heads, this was a doctor they had on air, AND AGREED WITH!

A doctor got on a Fox News morning show and said that due to women having breasts and ovaries, their insurance rates should be higher then men. Excuse me, so you mean men don't have breasts, and men don't get diseases and injuries that women don't get? Don't women live longer than men, so their costs can be pro-rated over a longer time, lowing their rates? Women want birth control for free, so they should may a bigger insurance payment? So, Viagra is free for men, and is now being used by most men longer than women using birth control. No cost to that, huh?

A doctor goes on Fox News and says that since women have boobs, they need to pay bigger insurance premiums. Bravo, Fox News! Bravo! Another great move that will assure women will flock to your station, and the GOP,  for whom you are a complete shill for, and state their beliefs to the end.

Some Tea Party people think Ted Cruz is an American because he was born in Canada.

One of the most ridiculous things I heard this week was one Tea Party backer who said that to her, Ted Cruz is really an American because, after all, Canada is really part of America. She may have been laughing when she said it, but she wasn't kidding. No she said it, and realized exactly how stupid it sounded, so she started to laugh, and then said it again. Now, I'm sure that she must feel that it is a North America thing, so I'm sure she feels the same way about Mexico. Oh, that's right, the Tea Party wants to build a wall and have armed guards every few hundred feet to ensure that no Mexicans enter the country. So they really don't feel that way toward Mexicans, I guess. So, primarily white Canadians okay, but primarily Hispanic Mexicans aren't? Well, thank goodness that the Tea Party says they aren't racists in any way and that racism in America is a thing of the past. Because it sure looks like racism to me. But I'm a simple guy, Tea Party. So tell me, if it isn't racism, why is Canada is so good it's really America and Mexico is so bad that the country needs armed guards to keep them out?

Cruz's birth certificate flap is meant for the Tea Party

Many seem to miss the point about the New York Times article on Ted Cruz and his birth in Canada. It isn't meant for Democrats, but on those Tea Party Obama birthers.

The New York Times brought up the fact that Texas Senator Ted Cruz wasn't brought up so liberals wouldn't vote for him, but to show far right-wing birthers how stupid their argument with Obama being President really is. No one, either liberals or conservatives, is questioning whether Cruz is eligible to be President. While his father was not a US citizen, his mother was a US citizen, who happened to give birth to her son in Canada. He therefore is a U.S citizen, and is eligible to be President. Obama father was not a U.S. citizen, but his mother was, and gave birth to her son in Hawaii. So how is he not eligible to be President? Even if she gave birth in Kenya, and there's no evidence that's in any way true, how is Obama any less eligible to be President than Cruz? He's not, and that's the point of The New York Times article.

The New York Times didn't start the Cruz birth certificate flap to convince liberals not to vote for Cruz, but to show far-right Obama birthers how stupid their position really is.      

Michael Bloomberg should take a chill pill.

Ever since the judge told New York City that the way they were doing stop and frisk was illegal, Michael Bloomberg has railed against the judge non-stop. Well Mayor, it's time to stop.

I don't live in New York, but I do have a brother who lives there, so I do have a small stake in this. I don't want to see him injured or hurt. But the judge, contrary to what the Mayor has said, didn't say that stop and frisk is illegal, but how New York is doing it violates people's 4th Amendment rights. So why didn't Bloomberg say that, while the city doesn't agree with the judge and will appeal, it will try to see how it can continue the policy without violating anyone's rights. Wouldn't that be a legal and prudent way to go? Tell me Mayor, is 85% of your city's crime in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods? That's the percentage of minorities that were stopped. You think that it break no person's rights when almost 90% of those stopped had no guns, and 87% were breaking no laws and had no warrants for them? So, how did these people or actually, why did you stop and frisk these people? You don't think there may be a problem there? At least one person, and it was a judge, did. And I'm sure many others do, too.

Ever since the judge ruled against stop and frisk in New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has railed against the judge and trying to explain why the city did it. Take a chill pill, Mayor. Observe the judge's ruling, and appeal it in court. It's called the rule of law, and you have no more right to go against it than right-wing legislatures who want to do away with gun control laws. And I'l speak out against both sides, and so should others.      

Okay Newt, tell us the GOP plan, if there really is one.

Newt Gingrich, that jolly old former Speaker of the House, told a GOP group that the GOP needs to be for something, and not just against things. Then, he told the group what they needed to to go see people and explain their plan. What was the plan? Well, that's just it, he didn't give a plan.

Newt said that the GOP would have to go to town hall meetings and speak to groups that would accept GOP ideas, like business owners and entrepreneurs, and tell them what the GOP could do for them. Okay, that is a GOP strong point, as the GOP wants little to no taxes on the rich and very, very little, if any, business regulations. But Newt, that fewer than 10% of Americans? How would you build the base by getting other people? Well, Newt said that the GOP needed to tell regular people their message of hope rather than despair. He said the GOP needed to show regular people how the GOP plan would help them. So Newt, how does the GOP do that? Oh, he didn't say how the GOP would help most people, just that the GOP needed to tell people that the GOP would help them. Oh, so you want people to hope your plan helps them, rather than despair over the fact that the GOP plan leaves them completely and utterly helpless. Great idea Newt.

Newt Gingrich told the GOP that they need to be for something, rather than against everything. Okay Newt and the GOP, if you really have a plan for everyday people, tell us what it is. What's that? I don't hear anything. Oh, that's right, you don't have one.

Tell me again why the GOP listens to Donald Trump.

Donald Trump gave another interview this weekend and again proved he knows nothing about our government. Can someone tell me again why anyone in the GOP listens to him?

Donald Trump was asked last weekend about GOP Tea Party darling Ted Cruz and where he was born. Saying that he didn't know where Cruz was born, Trump said that maybe he wasn't qualified to be president. When inform that Cruz was actually born in Canada, Trump said the interviewer would to ask Cruz if he was eligible. What? You mean what's good for President Obama isn't good for a Tea Party darling like Senator Ted Cruz? Or do you really know that if either parent is an American citizen, you're an American citizen, no matter where you were born? If that's true, and President Obama's mother was an American, no matter if he was born in Kenya or Hawaii. The same holds true for Ted Cruz, born in Canada, and John McCain, born in Panama. But you can't say that, can you Mr. Trump?

Donald Trump gave an interview this weekend, and showed he either doesn't know what the requirements are to be president, or selectively disregards it when it comes to a black, Democratic-party backed president. Either way Tea Party, can you explain to me again why you listen to him?            

Missouri State Fair should close the rodeo.

I just watched the video of the horrible, despicable action the rodeo clown wearing the "Obama" mask, and heard the words of the announcer. As a person who was born in Missouri, spent 20 year defending Missouri in the Air Force, and now live in Missouri, I want the rodeo closed for the rest of this year's fair, and the announcer barred from ever working as an announcer at any public place in Missouri ever again. And for all those in attendance who cheered for "President Obama" to be trampled by a bull, you should be ashamed of yourself. And if you were there, cheered for the bull, and reading this, let me know where I can meet you. Send me your name and your phone number, and I'll call you. I use a walker, and I'll still find a way to kick your stupid, chicken-shit, pathetic asses. And that's not a threat, that's a promise. Think I'm kidding? You were in a group of people, you coward. I'll stand by what I say and write all by myself. I don't need a crowd for bravery. Obviously, you do.  

Think the GOP can't get dumber or more far-right? Meet Ted Yoho

Every day that I think the GOP can't get any dumber or get any farther right, some Congressman proves me wrong. Now, it Florida Congressman Ted Yoho, who seems to set the new standard for making up facts. I thought it was bad when he said that doesn't believe President Obama's birth certificate and that he isn't an American. I thought it was bad enough that he called the President a racist for a tax on tanning beds. Now, Representative Yoho has given a speech where he states that if Government shut down for a while it wouldn't hurt the country's credit rating. Really? So, when the GOP threatened to shut down the government in 2011, America's credit rating didn't go down? Oh, yes it did! So when any company shuts down for a while reorganizing, it has the same credit rating and gets the same loan rate when it re-opens? Again, of course not. People flock to do business with a company after they've defaulted on their bills, right? Again, not a chance!

It's bad enough when the GOP make up their own facts to back up their belief. But now, the GOP is rewriting facts and data to serve their purposes. And I thought the GOP couldn't get any dumber or farther right.  

CNN and NBC should tell the GOP to go screw itself.

The GOP has told both CNN and NBC that if they run a certain story on Hillary Clinton, they will refuse to have their 2016 candidate debate on their networks. I think that CNN and NBC should tell the GOP exactly where it can stick it. And I do mean EXACTLY. They should tell the GOP that if their candidate doesn't want to debate on their station, fine. Tell them they'll get the Democratic candidate on the air, ask the questions, state where the GOP candidate stands on the issue, and then ask if there's any difference in how the Democratic candidate feels. Think any candidate wouldn't like that format?

The GOP has threatened both NBC and CNN with not having their 2016 candidate debate on their stations if they run a certain Hillary Clinton story. They should tell the GOP to stick that idea where the sun don't shine. And if the Democrats said their candidate wouldn't debate on Fox News because of something they ran, I'd have Fox News say the same thing. Although I think the Tea Party GOP are morons who are attempting to dismantle the federal government, this gets down to the right of the press. Political parties should never dictate terms to the press.  

Automakers should bail out Detroit.

I know it's not an idea that will really fly, but after all Detroit has done for the Big 3 automakers, why can't they now save Detroit. Simply set up an account for the city of Detroit and put $1 or $2 dollars in it for every car that's sold. Want all of America to pay for it? Then, instead of a car costing $16,996, make it an even $17,000. Think any costumer would blink at the extra $4 with the cost of a car now? Put in any interest bearing account, even the small ones that most banks have, and I think the city debt could be paid off very easily and quickly.

Detroit helped make American automakers. It's time for American automakers to return the favor and save Detroit.

Does the GOP know what it's saying?

It seems that whenever anyone in the GOP talks these days, everyone has to just shake their heads, and say, "I can't believe what they just said." I'm not sure the GOP knows what they are saying any more.

When President Obama went out and proposed a bill to lower corporate tax rate, close loopholes, and use the extra money to fund jobs and education, House Speaker John Boehner dismissed it, saying President Obama was simply on the campaign trail giving people money, without even looking at the proposal. Then Speaker Boehner added that if his approval polls were as low as the President, he'd do the same thing. What did you say, Speaker? The President's approval rating isn't good, in the high 40s, but your approval rating and the rating of Congress is at 12%. Do you know what you're saying?

When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul started getting into their basic pissing contest, Governor Christie said that libertarians like Rand Paul, who believe the federal government should stay out of people's lives, should go see and meet people who have been helped by money from Hurricane Sandy Relief. Senator Paul came beck that it was people like Governor Christie and their "Give me, give me, give me, give me money" attitude that has made our military weak and underfunded. Senator Paul, you're a libertarian, right? Then you don't believe in a strong central federal government or a strong military. Senator, do you know what you're saying?

Texas Senator Ted Cruz said that he hoped the House and Senate GOP wouldn't pass next year's federal budget there was any money in it for the Affordable Care Act. Senator Cruz said that it needed to happen this year because if people got use to the bill, they'd like it and not want it repealed. He then said if the GOP didn't pass a budget and a government shutdown happened, the country would see it was really President Obama's fault. So Senator, you want people not to have the bill so they won't like it, and you'd shut down the government but President Obama would get the blame. Senator, do you know what you're saying?

You know, the GOP keep talking, and I know what they're saying, but I wonder if the GOP knows what it is saying.      

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.