Political and religious commentary from a liberal, secular, humanistic perspective.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Secession Fever
"Hey, y'all, we shore don't like that black guy up thar in thet White House! Let's git all our kind together and run the guy out of town!"
"Sorry, Bubba, thet ain't gonna work. He's got all them military types and guns and tanks and stuff and we jest ain't got enuf firepower."
"Oh, damn, you are shore right! Well, hell, we'll git our relatives and good Bible-believin' folks jest like us, you know white and all, and we'll secede jest like our wunnerful ancestors did awhiles back."
"Hey, Bubba, y'all got a great idea thar. I'll git on the phone jest as soon as ah finish this here six-pack and jest as soon as I kin find someone who kin read and rite."
Word is out that a whole bunch of rednecks in several of our states (mostly southern) have filed secession petitions, whatever that means. They want out. They ain't gonna put up with another four years of this black commie, Muslim, socialist, Marxist, gun-hating, no good SOB of a president.
Never mind that secession petitions aren't legal and aren't worth the paper they're written on. The Civil War settled that. Maybe they think they can start another civil war; shoot at one of our warships off the coast of South Carolina. I'll bet if you asked them why they want to secede, they wouldn't say anything bad about Obama other than he's running this country into the ground, but they'd start spewing crap about "states' rights" just like their "wunnerful ancestors" did 152 years ago. These folks aren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but they are racist to the core and mean as hell, and don't have a clue what this country is all about!
As we said, most of the people involved in this secession business are from southern states; like Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. This is the racist core of our country.
But the Teapot Crackpots are involved and thus the nutcases have filed similar petitions in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Montana, and even Oregon. And those states contain lots of racists, too.
None of this is going anywhere. It's a lot of noise about nothing. Those involved are merely malcontents blowing off steam. But there's a sinister aspect to the secession movement. Much of it, as noted, is born of racism. And it shows clearly we've still got a lot of citizens who are ignorant of our history, of our purpose and of our promise.
These people know nothing of patriotism, even though I'd guess they'd proudly wave their flags on Veterans Day and the Fourth of July while guzzling beer and chomping down hot dogs. These are people who are not willing to live in a country where they cannot have the upper hand and control the "minorities" - blacks and Latinos and Hispanics and women! They do not understand that a democracy can thrive only when the rights of the minorities are protected. And they are scared to death that they will soon become a "minority," if that hasn't happened already!
They do not believe in Democracy or in striving for a more perfect union. They are not patriots for patriotism has to do, not with waving flags, but helping these UNITED STATES live up to its ideals of democracy, inclusiveness, and freedom. But the secessionists disgrace this country. They demean the beacon of light represented by the Statue of Liberty. They spit on our heritage and on all those who have fought to defend this country from its enemies.
These secessionists are anti-American! They hate their country. They hate it so much they want to leave it.
There's got to be an uninhabited island somewhere to which they could secede! If they hate the U.S. and the majority of people in our land so much, let 'em go. Let them have their own country, set up their own system of government, determine their own laws, and most importantly, let them establish an immigration policy that really works!
That should last about two weeks then they'd have their own civil war!
A state cannot secede from the Union. But individuals sure as hell can. I'll bet we'd have a rather large crowd gathered on our shores waving goodbye as they sailed away. And then we could get about the business of fixing the U.S. of A. without further distraction!
The Republican Nominee for President in 2016 is...
Thank goodness and all the gods that be that the election is over, that we've seen the last of the nasty television ads and can once again turn on the TV without some politician slyly telling us about the evil traits of his/her opponent.
The relief at an election concluded (except for Arizona which seems to have more ballots still uncounted than counted) is like taking a deep breath of fresh air. Ahhhhh.
But is it really over? I just read how people are already talking about and positioning themselves for 2016! The pundits, too, are busily predicting who will or who will not run in four more years. Arghhhh! Perhaps we could do some governing before we start running?
Quesions are being asked. Will Biden be the Democratic nominee? Is Hillary going to go for the gold? Chris Christie will surely be a top Republican contender. Or maybe Huckabee, he of god and country (in that order) will give it another try. The problem is that there isn't a Republican left in this country that would be worthy of the White House.
If you differ, please name one. Just don't say Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin or Paul Ryan. That would exclude you from polite conversation anywhere on earth.
The hard truth is that Republicans don't seem to be much concerned as to the qualifications of those who run for public office. Consider the group of would-be nominees from this last fiasco: Huckabee was one, a lying, sleazy Southern Baptist preacher/pundit, nasty as a Florida gator; Ginrich threw his hat in the ring not knowing that he was a dead man so far as politics go; Santorum? Please. He's an ideologue in love with the Pope. Ron Paul has a lot of noisy supporters, but his libertarianism is as nonsensical these days as is Communism. Rick Perry faded early after he showed the world he didn't have a clue about much of anything except he didn't like the federal government giving Texas money unless they did and then he kept it. Perry also loved Jesus and thought the government should sponsor prayer fests led by really whacked Pentecostals who are looking to take over the world for Haysus.
But I'm going to make a prediction. I don't have any feel for who will end up being the Democratic nominee, although the Dems have a large group of competent and capable men and women any one of which would do a good job as the leader of the free world.
The Republicans, as we've said, are really out of ammo. They were so desperate in this last contest they nominated Romney even though most of them didn't like him, thought him to be a hollow man, didn't trust him and didn't know anything about what he believed about anything. Which makes sense because as we found out, Romney himself didn't know what he believed about anything.
Here's the deal. If you've read the latest crapola as to why the Republicans lost the election, you know a lot of it had to do with the Latino vote. As I recall, about 70% of Latinos voted for Mr. Obama. Which should have been no surprise. The Repubs showed clearly they didn't care about the Latinos or what the Latinos cared about. They were an anti-immigrant party, and their plan for immigration reform was essentially "Send the bastards back to where they came from!"
For some reason that didn't sit too well with Latinos or Hispanics. And the Repubs lost the Latino vote big-time!
What can they do? That's easy. Put Jeb Bush up as their nominee. Jeb is married to a Hispanic, he speaks Spanish and he's well thought of by people who don't know his record as governor in Florida. Of course, Republicans think he was a great governor, but then they thought the same of Romney in Massachusetts. The truth is much darker.
Jeb is better-looking, younger and much smarter than his brother, Georgy. He can talk a good game even though his game-plan is the same old tired "less taxes, more privatization, deregulate everything in sight; give public money to private religious schools, blah, blah, blah."
But most importantly, Jeb, who has insisted that he isn't going to run for public office again, is now making noises hinting he might, just possibly, if necessary, be open to the Republican nomination. He probably figures if Romney could get nominated, just about anyone could. He would be a formidable and very dangerous candidate.
But my bet is that Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee in 2016.
The relief at an election concluded (except for Arizona which seems to have more ballots still uncounted than counted) is like taking a deep breath of fresh air. Ahhhhh.
But is it really over? I just read how people are already talking about and positioning themselves for 2016! The pundits, too, are busily predicting who will or who will not run in four more years. Arghhhh! Perhaps we could do some governing before we start running?
Quesions are being asked. Will Biden be the Democratic nominee? Is Hillary going to go for the gold? Chris Christie will surely be a top Republican contender. Or maybe Huckabee, he of god and country (in that order) will give it another try. The problem is that there isn't a Republican left in this country that would be worthy of the White House.
If you differ, please name one. Just don't say Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin or Paul Ryan. That would exclude you from polite conversation anywhere on earth.
The hard truth is that Republicans don't seem to be much concerned as to the qualifications of those who run for public office. Consider the group of would-be nominees from this last fiasco: Huckabee was one, a lying, sleazy Southern Baptist preacher/pundit, nasty as a Florida gator; Ginrich threw his hat in the ring not knowing that he was a dead man so far as politics go; Santorum? Please. He's an ideologue in love with the Pope. Ron Paul has a lot of noisy supporters, but his libertarianism is as nonsensical these days as is Communism. Rick Perry faded early after he showed the world he didn't have a clue about much of anything except he didn't like the federal government giving Texas money unless they did and then he kept it. Perry also loved Jesus and thought the government should sponsor prayer fests led by really whacked Pentecostals who are looking to take over the world for Haysus.
But I'm going to make a prediction. I don't have any feel for who will end up being the Democratic nominee, although the Dems have a large group of competent and capable men and women any one of which would do a good job as the leader of the free world.
The Republicans, as we've said, are really out of ammo. They were so desperate in this last contest they nominated Romney even though most of them didn't like him, thought him to be a hollow man, didn't trust him and didn't know anything about what he believed about anything. Which makes sense because as we found out, Romney himself didn't know what he believed about anything.
Here's the deal. If you've read the latest crapola as to why the Republicans lost the election, you know a lot of it had to do with the Latino vote. As I recall, about 70% of Latinos voted for Mr. Obama. Which should have been no surprise. The Repubs showed clearly they didn't care about the Latinos or what the Latinos cared about. They were an anti-immigrant party, and their plan for immigration reform was essentially "Send the bastards back to where they came from!"
For some reason that didn't sit too well with Latinos or Hispanics. And the Repubs lost the Latino vote big-time!
What can they do? That's easy. Put Jeb Bush up as their nominee. Jeb is married to a Hispanic, he speaks Spanish and he's well thought of by people who don't know his record as governor in Florida. Of course, Republicans think he was a great governor, but then they thought the same of Romney in Massachusetts. The truth is much darker.
Jeb is better-looking, younger and much smarter than his brother, Georgy. He can talk a good game even though his game-plan is the same old tired "less taxes, more privatization, deregulate everything in sight; give public money to private religious schools, blah, blah, blah."
But most importantly, Jeb, who has insisted that he isn't going to run for public office again, is now making noises hinting he might, just possibly, if necessary, be open to the Republican nomination. He probably figures if Romney could get nominated, just about anyone could. He would be a formidable and very dangerous candidate.
But my bet is that Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee in 2016.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
God arranged Obama's election
[Thanks to Atheist Cartoons for the depiction above]
Obama was elected by God. Or so says one Christian blogger in his article titled "In God We Trust."
It may be true that this blogger trusts in God. Perhaps many of his Christians friends trust in God. But it is too big a step to say, as does the motto on our money, "In God We Trust." We, the people of this imperfect union, trust a lot of things, but we do not trust in God. We trust in money, in ourselves and sometimes our families, our doctors, our clergy, our teachers, and not infrequently our friends; we don't have much trust in politicians, though. But we know enough to be careful.
We learn quickly that we can't trust everyone or everything. Some of us have learned we can't trust God, either.
The word, God, has a multitude of meanings. If you took an average congregation of any religious group in this country and asked each member to describe the god in which they believed, you would have as many different descriptions as there were members. Neither the clergy nor the theologians can agree on what the word "God" means.
Some people think of God as a magical human being; a human writ large; a Santa Claus figure - fatherly, kind, one who loves his children and wants them to be happy. This god often is thought to reside "up" in the sky somewhere or "out" in space.
Usually it is considered possible to have a personal relationship with such a god. You can be friends with this god. You can pray to him or her and expect to be heard and that your prayers will be answered in one way of another.
This god is thought to desire worship and adoration. Thus, we have churches with set rituals to allow worship and adoration to happen. In some cases, the ritual includes magical words which are believed to change reality. The Roman Catholic Church espouses a doctrine called transubstantiation which means that when a priest says certain words over crackers and wine, those earthly elements actually change into the physical body and blood of the Jesus of the Gospels.
It is also true that Christians generally believe in just one god, but they say he has three different aspects or essences or persons. It's all very confusing and makes very little sense to people living in the 21st century. We're talking about the doctrine of the Trinity - God, the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There are three persons but only one god.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Or maybe smoke your pipe first and then you'll better be able to understand it.
A quick summary: People all over the world believe in a god or gods. But what they believe is vastly different, and often contradictory. Even within one particular religion, you will find a wide variety of ideas as to what the god is like.
It is true that most Christians believe that their trinitarian God is active in the world and is able to influence people and events either directly or indirectly. That is the whole point of most prayers - to get God's attention and to ask him/her to intervene in one way or another.
Which brings me back to the article I first mentioned, "In God We Trust." The author, Shayes, said he did not want either Obama or Romney as president. "I don't think President Obama did a good job ... and therefore, I don't believe he deserves a chance at a second term." He didn't mention any specifics as to what Obama did or did not do, however.
He continued: "To be completely honest, I don't think either candidate really deserves to be in office, but I would rather try someone new than continue with a candidate who has lived up to very little that he promised us four years ago."
Many of us would and could argue quite effectively against such reasoning, but that's not what this essay is about. The essence of what he has to say comes next:
"The thing I've had to continually remind myself over the last couple of weeks and since casting my vote yesterday is that God is in control." It may be true, he says, that the people voted Mr. Obama into office, but "the One who really has complete control over who is leading the United States or any other country is not us, but God. You can call it cheesy, you can call it ridiculous, but it's Biblical truth."
Shayes quotes several Bible passages which he thinks bolsters his theological position. "The fact of the matter is," says Shayes, "God is sovereign. He knows what He's doing. He places specific rulers in charge of countries at specific times in history for purposes that sometimes only He knows."
Oh boy. So President Obama was really gifted a second term because God wanted him to serve another four years as president of the United States. That is Biblical truth! God manipulated the election and allowed Romney, his entourage and the entire Republican party to go through all kinds of trials and tribulations the last couple of years just for the hell of it. Obama was his favorite all along.
And that must mean he doesn't care much for Mormons. It must mean he's not pleased with the extremist Christian fundys in our midst. And God must love Obamacare.
Is that a good deal or what?
But there's a slight problem with this notion that God is manipulating countries and politicians all over the world. According to Shayes, God put Stalin in office, and Hitler in charge of Germany and set up Franco as dictator of Spain, and the goofball in Iran, and the dictator Salazar in Portugal, etc.
That means God's responsible for the Holocaust; for the millions slaughtered under Stalin in the former Soviet Union, for all those killed under Mao and his regime in China.
Shayes goes further and quotes Paul in the epistle of Romans (Chapter 13:1-5) to prove his point that we (Christians) are obliged to respect and obey those put in authority over us for they have been placed there by God.
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
This is a good lesson as to why we should be very careful if we seek guidance from the Bible. There is a lot of nonsense in the Bible. That's where fundamentalists get all hung up. If you believe every word is of God and true, you must do a variety of mental gymnastics to make any sense at all.
But this one you can't get around. For if you believe God establishes dictators and presidents and other rulers in countries, you must somehow account for all the evil rulers and dictators and presidents we've seen down through the centuries.
And that would make God complicit in all the evil that has been wrought on the human race by "authorities" from the beginning of time! And you can't say "his ways are not our ways" or he does this "for reasons only he understands." Most human beings are quite capable of identifying evil when they see it. And if this passage from Paul's letter to the Romans is true, who would ever want to believe in a god who was more of a devil than the devil herself?
Romans is one of the earliest "books" in the New Testament, and was probably written in the 50s or early 60s. The situation had grown very tense. Rebellion was in the air. Rome was edgy and had no compunction about ruthlessly stiffling any opposition in its outlying territories. In this passage, Paul is writing for the Roman authorities as much as to the Christians in Rome. He's letting the authorities know the Christians are not a threat and telling the Christians to cool it, to avoid giving the authorities any reason to send in the troops.
In other words, Paul (in a letter!) wrote a particular group of words for a particular group at a particular time. What he said was never intended as timeless truth or the "word" of God for all people of all times.
In his final section, Shayes argues that because God has placed Obama in a position of authority, Christians should respect him. If "we rebel against our president, or disrespect him ... we are rebelling against and disrespecting God because, whether we understand the reasoning or not, God has put President Obama into office for another term..."
While I think we should offer Mr. Obama our respect, and that as a people we should work together to solve the problems we face in this country, that is not because any deity chose him for the office. God did not "put President Obama into office for another term." Obama was able to obtain sufficient electoral votes to retain his office, and coincidentally, received a majority of the popular vote. God was not in the voting booth pulling levers, punching cards, or filling in little boxes. We, the people, did that.
Such a God as Shayes believes in is a fantasy. It's not enough to say "this is Biblical truth." As we've seen if what Paul writes in Romans is true, God is a monster unworthy of our attention or worship or trust or anything else.
Obama was elected by God. Or so says one Christian blogger in his article titled "In God We Trust."
It may be true that this blogger trusts in God. Perhaps many of his Christians friends trust in God. But it is too big a step to say, as does the motto on our money, "In God We Trust." We, the people of this imperfect union, trust a lot of things, but we do not trust in God. We trust in money, in ourselves and sometimes our families, our doctors, our clergy, our teachers, and not infrequently our friends; we don't have much trust in politicians, though. But we know enough to be careful.
We learn quickly that we can't trust everyone or everything. Some of us have learned we can't trust God, either.
The word, God, has a multitude of meanings. If you took an average congregation of any religious group in this country and asked each member to describe the god in which they believed, you would have as many different descriptions as there were members. Neither the clergy nor the theologians can agree on what the word "God" means.
Some people think of God as a magical human being; a human writ large; a Santa Claus figure - fatherly, kind, one who loves his children and wants them to be happy. This god often is thought to reside "up" in the sky somewhere or "out" in space.
Usually it is considered possible to have a personal relationship with such a god. You can be friends with this god. You can pray to him or her and expect to be heard and that your prayers will be answered in one way of another.
This god is thought to desire worship and adoration. Thus, we have churches with set rituals to allow worship and adoration to happen. In some cases, the ritual includes magical words which are believed to change reality. The Roman Catholic Church espouses a doctrine called transubstantiation which means that when a priest says certain words over crackers and wine, those earthly elements actually change into the physical body and blood of the Jesus of the Gospels.
It is also true that Christians generally believe in just one god, but they say he has three different aspects or essences or persons. It's all very confusing and makes very little sense to people living in the 21st century. We're talking about the doctrine of the Trinity - God, the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There are three persons but only one god.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Or maybe smoke your pipe first and then you'll better be able to understand it.
A quick summary: People all over the world believe in a god or gods. But what they believe is vastly different, and often contradictory. Even within one particular religion, you will find a wide variety of ideas as to what the god is like.
It is true that most Christians believe that their trinitarian God is active in the world and is able to influence people and events either directly or indirectly. That is the whole point of most prayers - to get God's attention and to ask him/her to intervene in one way or another.
Which brings me back to the article I first mentioned, "In God We Trust." The author, Shayes, said he did not want either Obama or Romney as president. "I don't think President Obama did a good job ... and therefore, I don't believe he deserves a chance at a second term." He didn't mention any specifics as to what Obama did or did not do, however.
He continued: "To be completely honest, I don't think either candidate really deserves to be in office, but I would rather try someone new than continue with a candidate who has lived up to very little that he promised us four years ago."
Many of us would and could argue quite effectively against such reasoning, but that's not what this essay is about. The essence of what he has to say comes next:
"The thing I've had to continually remind myself over the last couple of weeks and since casting my vote yesterday is that God is in control." It may be true, he says, that the people voted Mr. Obama into office, but "the One who really has complete control over who is leading the United States or any other country is not us, but God. You can call it cheesy, you can call it ridiculous, but it's Biblical truth."
Shayes quotes several Bible passages which he thinks bolsters his theological position. "The fact of the matter is," says Shayes, "God is sovereign. He knows what He's doing. He places specific rulers in charge of countries at specific times in history for purposes that sometimes only He knows."
Oh boy. So President Obama was really gifted a second term because God wanted him to serve another four years as president of the United States. That is Biblical truth! God manipulated the election and allowed Romney, his entourage and the entire Republican party to go through all kinds of trials and tribulations the last couple of years just for the hell of it. Obama was his favorite all along.
And that must mean he doesn't care much for Mormons. It must mean he's not pleased with the extremist Christian fundys in our midst. And God must love Obamacare.
Is that a good deal or what?
But there's a slight problem with this notion that God is manipulating countries and politicians all over the world. According to Shayes, God put Stalin in office, and Hitler in charge of Germany and set up Franco as dictator of Spain, and the goofball in Iran, and the dictator Salazar in Portugal, etc.
That means God's responsible for the Holocaust; for the millions slaughtered under Stalin in the former Soviet Union, for all those killed under Mao and his regime in China.
Shayes goes further and quotes Paul in the epistle of Romans (Chapter 13:1-5) to prove his point that we (Christians) are obliged to respect and obey those put in authority over us for they have been placed there by God.
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
This is a good lesson as to why we should be very careful if we seek guidance from the Bible. There is a lot of nonsense in the Bible. That's where fundamentalists get all hung up. If you believe every word is of God and true, you must do a variety of mental gymnastics to make any sense at all.
But this one you can't get around. For if you believe God establishes dictators and presidents and other rulers in countries, you must somehow account for all the evil rulers and dictators and presidents we've seen down through the centuries.
And that would make God complicit in all the evil that has been wrought on the human race by "authorities" from the beginning of time! And you can't say "his ways are not our ways" or he does this "for reasons only he understands." Most human beings are quite capable of identifying evil when they see it. And if this passage from Paul's letter to the Romans is true, who would ever want to believe in a god who was more of a devil than the devil herself?
Romans is one of the earliest "books" in the New Testament, and was probably written in the 50s or early 60s. The situation had grown very tense. Rebellion was in the air. Rome was edgy and had no compunction about ruthlessly stiffling any opposition in its outlying territories. In this passage, Paul is writing for the Roman authorities as much as to the Christians in Rome. He's letting the authorities know the Christians are not a threat and telling the Christians to cool it, to avoid giving the authorities any reason to send in the troops.
In other words, Paul (in a letter!) wrote a particular group of words for a particular group at a particular time. What he said was never intended as timeless truth or the "word" of God for all people of all times.
In his final section, Shayes argues that because God has placed Obama in a position of authority, Christians should respect him. If "we rebel against our president, or disrespect him ... we are rebelling against and disrespecting God because, whether we understand the reasoning or not, God has put President Obama into office for another term..."
Such a God as Shayes believes in is a fantasy. It's not enough to say "this is Biblical truth." As we've seen if what Paul writes in Romans is true, God is a monster unworthy of our attention or worship or trust or anything else.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
A soup of ignorance and stupidity
Once upon a time I had a friend. Then I found out he's truly unhinged. Something is wrong with his mind and his ability to reason. He lives in San Francisco. He has a blog. After Tuesday's election he posted a stylized picture of the president, in red, complete with hammer and sickle upon which was imposed the word, "Obamunism." He's nuts! He's not my friend anymore.
But he provides an example of the kind of hatred of Obama that exists in this country; a hatred that is frequently race-based, irrational, unreasonable, and very dangerous. I often get the feeling that someone opened the doors of the insane asylum and let all the inmates run loose.
Some of these crazies are well-known. But many are reprehensible nobodies from backwater towns in the southern states - places like Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc.
For example, in Lubbock, Texas, a judge predicted last summer that Obama's re-election could lead to a civil war. Another Texan and GOP official said he wants an "amicable divorce" from the "maggots" who voted for Obama. He opined that Vermont and Texas had very little in common. My inclination is to let him go, along with all the other teapot crackpots in Texas and elsewhere. Let Texas become a loony bin, a collection of all the scum in our land. That means, of course, that the good people in Texas will have to find another place to live, but maybe we could help because it would certainly benefit the country as a whole if the crazies had their own place to hide out.
Then there's Ted Nugent, he of foggy voice, a brain deficit, and a job as a mouthpiece for the National Rifle Association, who has concluded Mr. Obama won because "Pimps, whores and welfare brats voted for economic and spiritual suicide."
Ann Coulter just couldn't quite understand what happened, "there is no hope," she said. But she's certain that if her first choice, Chris Christie, had been nominated, the election would have been a different story.
Mary Matalin, who has gone totally off the rails, said that the president was a "political narcissistic sociopath." I wonder if she even knows what that means? Is she angry because he had the audacity to seek a second term?
Victoria Jackson, of SNL fame, wept. "I can't stop crying," she said, weepily. "America died."
The Cincinnati Tea Party also said after the election that the nation was dead. I must have missed that. And ever since I read that comment I've been checking, but I find that America is very much alive.
In Ohio, the Lebanon Tea Party went into mourning following Obama's re-election. We've lost our country, they moaned, and we're going to be a socialist nation within months.
Well, which is it? Is the nation dead or heading toward socialism? And why didn't Obama make us a socialist nation already? I mean he's had four years. If he couldn't do it in four years, how do they think he's going to do it in months?
Ron Johnson, who lost his seat in Wisconsin claimed that Obama won because voters were ignorant. Ignorant of what?
Robert Stacy McCan wrote in the American Spectator that "The list of fools who have brought this disaster upon us certainly will include New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the gelatinous [ouch!] clown who (a) hogged up a prime spot at the Republican convention to sing his own praises; (b) embraced Obama as the hero of Hurricane Sandy; and (c) then refused to appear at campaign events in support of Romney's presidential campaign." Christie, says McCan, engaged in a "perfidious betrayal."
Heh, heh. It was all Christie's fault!
Karl Rove, on the other hand, the go-to guy for Republicans who want to engage in devious chicanery to win elections, but really blew this one and about $400 mil of the one percent's cash, said Obama won because he suppressed the vote. No, I'm serious, that's what he said, even as Republicans in almost every state in the Union worked day and night to suppress the vote of those they thought might vote against them.
And the fat addict, Rush Limbaugh, noted sadly that he went to bed thinking "we'd lost the country." I wonder who he includes in that "we" and did he really think that "we" group had owned the country?
Neal Boortz, a syndicated conservative radio talk show host, "twittered" that Obama was the same as al-Qaida. "Congratulate Obama on his victory? Let's congratulate Al Qaeda while we're at it. Same goals." Now someone who writes this is not merely stupid, but also crazy.
I've saved the best for last. Another so-called conservative radio talk show host by name of Michael Graham, opined on FAUX News that Romney lost because the Obama campaign tried to convince female voters that Romney would put them in "rape camps." More insanity!
We have a real problem in the U.S. of A. Although the good guys won this election, we still have a large percentage of people who are not only ignorant but are prejudiced against anything that falls outside of their very limited brain space. These people are not amenable to reason. They listen, day in and day out, to FAUX News, to Limbaugh, to these other radio commentators. And they believe what they see and hear. That means they are never introduced to the truth. Worse, they've been inoculated against the truth.
For example. In Ohio, only 38% of Republicans believe that Obama is more responsible for the death of Osama bin Laden than Romney! Fifteen percent think that Romney is more responsible for bin Laden's death than Obama, and 47 percent say they don't know!
Ignorance and stupidity reign. Still, Obama won the state of Ohio!
Maybe there is a god?
But he provides an example of the kind of hatred of Obama that exists in this country; a hatred that is frequently race-based, irrational, unreasonable, and very dangerous. I often get the feeling that someone opened the doors of the insane asylum and let all the inmates run loose.
Some of these crazies are well-known. But many are reprehensible nobodies from backwater towns in the southern states - places like Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc.
For example, in Lubbock, Texas, a judge predicted last summer that Obama's re-election could lead to a civil war. Another Texan and GOP official said he wants an "amicable divorce" from the "maggots" who voted for Obama. He opined that Vermont and Texas had very little in common. My inclination is to let him go, along with all the other teapot crackpots in Texas and elsewhere. Let Texas become a loony bin, a collection of all the scum in our land. That means, of course, that the good people in Texas will have to find another place to live, but maybe we could help because it would certainly benefit the country as a whole if the crazies had their own place to hide out.
Then there's Ted Nugent, he of foggy voice, a brain deficit, and a job as a mouthpiece for the National Rifle Association, who has concluded Mr. Obama won because "Pimps, whores and welfare brats voted for economic and spiritual suicide."
Ann Coulter just couldn't quite understand what happened, "there is no hope," she said. But she's certain that if her first choice, Chris Christie, had been nominated, the election would have been a different story.
Mary Matalin, who has gone totally off the rails, said that the president was a "political narcissistic sociopath." I wonder if she even knows what that means? Is she angry because he had the audacity to seek a second term?
Victoria Jackson, of SNL fame, wept. "I can't stop crying," she said, weepily. "America died."
The Cincinnati Tea Party also said after the election that the nation was dead. I must have missed that. And ever since I read that comment I've been checking, but I find that America is very much alive.
In Ohio, the Lebanon Tea Party went into mourning following Obama's re-election. We've lost our country, they moaned, and we're going to be a socialist nation within months.
Well, which is it? Is the nation dead or heading toward socialism? And why didn't Obama make us a socialist nation already? I mean he's had four years. If he couldn't do it in four years, how do they think he's going to do it in months?
Ron Johnson, who lost his seat in Wisconsin claimed that Obama won because voters were ignorant. Ignorant of what?
Robert Stacy McCan wrote in the American Spectator that "The list of fools who have brought this disaster upon us certainly will include New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the gelatinous [ouch!] clown who (a) hogged up a prime spot at the Republican convention to sing his own praises; (b) embraced Obama as the hero of Hurricane Sandy; and (c) then refused to appear at campaign events in support of Romney's presidential campaign." Christie, says McCan, engaged in a "perfidious betrayal."
Heh, heh. It was all Christie's fault!
Karl Rove, on the other hand, the go-to guy for Republicans who want to engage in devious chicanery to win elections, but really blew this one and about $400 mil of the one percent's cash, said Obama won because he suppressed the vote. No, I'm serious, that's what he said, even as Republicans in almost every state in the Union worked day and night to suppress the vote of those they thought might vote against them.
And the fat addict, Rush Limbaugh, noted sadly that he went to bed thinking "we'd lost the country." I wonder who he includes in that "we" and did he really think that "we" group had owned the country?
Neal Boortz, a syndicated conservative radio talk show host, "twittered" that Obama was the same as al-Qaida. "Congratulate Obama on his victory? Let's congratulate Al Qaeda while we're at it. Same goals." Now someone who writes this is not merely stupid, but also crazy.
I've saved the best for last. Another so-called conservative radio talk show host by name of Michael Graham, opined on FAUX News that Romney lost because the Obama campaign tried to convince female voters that Romney would put them in "rape camps." More insanity!
We have a real problem in the U.S. of A. Although the good guys won this election, we still have a large percentage of people who are not only ignorant but are prejudiced against anything that falls outside of their very limited brain space. These people are not amenable to reason. They listen, day in and day out, to FAUX News, to Limbaugh, to these other radio commentators. And they believe what they see and hear. That means they are never introduced to the truth. Worse, they've been inoculated against the truth.
Ignorance and stupidity reign. Still, Obama won the state of Ohio!
Maybe there is a god?
Greed and Jesus with Obama in the Middle
He's the CEO of a big company. He's a good Christian. He loves Jesus. He begs forgiveness from his Lord as greed overpowers his religious intuitions. He wants Jesus to know that he can't help himself even as he bears false witness against the president and sends employees out into the cold because he thinks his profits will shrink if he is forced to provide health care for all of his employees.
The fact that he should not need to be prodded by the government to provide health care for his employees, especially if he wishes to be identified with Jesus, has obviously not occurred to him. The fact that Jesus cared not a whit for wealth or anyone's desire to become rich and that his attempt to claim the Lord helped build his business is wildly unbiblical has not crossed his mind.
Like so many on the extreme right, this CEO (Robert E. Murray of Murray Energy), has linked political ideology with his fundamentalist version of the Christian faith. These extremists, many of whom were convinced that their man would prevail in Tuesday's voting, have been slapped back down to reality. The American people, by a clear majority, were having none of such nonsense!
Murray provides a sharp portrait of how this political/religious confluence has taken shape in the United States. On Wednesday, November 7, he called his staff members together at which time he expressed concern as to the direction the country would take under Obama and then read this prayer: "Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build."
Conceit upon conceit. Profound hypocrisy.
Murray is forced to do nothing. What changed between Tuesday and Wednesday? Nada! Murray obviously has issues with Mr. Obama but the notion that he would have to layoff people because of the election is pure blarney!
The Washington Post (from which much of this information was taken) has printed the prayer in full:
"Dear Lord:
"The American people have made their choice. They have decided that America must change its course, away from the principals of our Founders. And, away from the idea of individual freedom and individual responsibility. Away from capitalism, economic responsibility, and personal acceptance.
"We are a Country in favor of redistribution, national weakness and reduced standard of living and lower and lower levels of personal freedom.
"My regret, Lord, is that our young people, including those in my own family, never will know what America was like or might have been. They will pay the price in their reduced standard of living, and most especially, reduced freedom.
"The takers outvoted the producers. In response to this, I have turned to my Bible and in II Peter, Chapter 1, verses 4-9 it says: 'To faith we are to add goodness; to goodness, knowledge; to knowledge, self control; to self-control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, kindness; to brotherly kindness, love.
"Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of the enterprises that you have helped us build. We ask for your guidance in this drastic time with the drastic decisions that will be made to have any hope of our survival as an American business enterprise.
"Amen."
Mr. Murray is delusional. And, if he doesn't know that all of this is BS and merely a rationalization to get rid of employees by blaming his own mess upon Mr. Obama, then he is not merely deluded but a fool and perhaps a crazy fool.
Certainly he is a partisan and typically a fundamentalist Christian who has been convinced that because he has accepted Jesus he can do pretty much any damn thing he desires. Such a notion is called "cheap grace." And it doesn't work.
The WaPo notes that the New Republic reported Murray Energy required employees (miners) to attend a Romney campaign event. Murray says that's not true. Furthermore, it was "reported that Murray Energy employees have given more than $1.4 million to Republican candidates for federal office since 2007."
That's OK, of course, unless the employees were "directed" to do so or otherwise compromised.
The worst of it, though, is that Murray Energy has had an environmental problem. "Notably, the company has spilled coal slurry into a creek on seven different occasions."
I suppose Mr. Murray would argue that God put that creek there for him to use which is one way God helped him build his company.
What is especially frightening is that if Romney won, such maggots would be crawling all over our political space, devouring those things which we hope will always most represent our country: honor, integrity, freedom, inclusiveness, and a dedication to build a society in which everyone, as Jefferson put it, has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Mr. Murray is unhappy with the way the election went. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it will cost him more money in terms of health care for his employees. But there's more to it. His hatred of Obama is palpable. Thus in his prayer he not so subtly implies that the Obama administration is unAmerican and something foreign, dangerous.
Mr. Murray desires not to come to grips with the facts. Obama, for one thing, is a Christian, and exemplifies Christianity far better than anyone I've heard of or seen who's part of the fundamentalist spectrum. Mr. Obama has lived a life of dedication to the highest ideals of this country. He is our duly elected and legitimate president; he was not chosen, in opposition to the majority of the American people, by the Supreme Court.
Obama believes, and perhaps this is what sticks most in Mr. Murray's craw, that this nation belongs not just or especially to the rich or the whites or those of one particular political stripe, but to everyone and he understands the meaning of commonwealth, whereby we recognize we that we're all in this enterprise of building a society and a nation together and we have a responsibility to one another, and those who have been more fortunate or more successful should have a greater responsibility to those less fortunate and less successful.
God didn't help Mr. Murray build his company. If he'd read his Bible and stop trying to find quotes to justify his perversity, he'd know that the God of his Jesus doesn't care at all about Mr. Murray's company with these exceptions: He cares that Mr. Murray do all he can to ensure that his employees are treated with respect by providing superior working conditions, that they are given a decent wage and have the best health care available.
Damn. That's hard. And that's why the world is full of phony Christians who spout Scripture to avoid the truth. Like Robert E. Murray.
The fact that he should not need to be prodded by the government to provide health care for his employees, especially if he wishes to be identified with Jesus, has obviously not occurred to him. The fact that Jesus cared not a whit for wealth or anyone's desire to become rich and that his attempt to claim the Lord helped build his business is wildly unbiblical has not crossed his mind.
Like so many on the extreme right, this CEO (Robert E. Murray of Murray Energy), has linked political ideology with his fundamentalist version of the Christian faith. These extremists, many of whom were convinced that their man would prevail in Tuesday's voting, have been slapped back down to reality. The American people, by a clear majority, were having none of such nonsense!
Murray provides a sharp portrait of how this political/religious confluence has taken shape in the United States. On Wednesday, November 7, he called his staff members together at which time he expressed concern as to the direction the country would take under Obama and then read this prayer: "Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build."
Conceit upon conceit. Profound hypocrisy.
Murray is forced to do nothing. What changed between Tuesday and Wednesday? Nada! Murray obviously has issues with Mr. Obama but the notion that he would have to layoff people because of the election is pure blarney!
The Washington Post (from which much of this information was taken) has printed the prayer in full:
"Dear Lord:
"The American people have made their choice. They have decided that America must change its course, away from the principals of our Founders. And, away from the idea of individual freedom and individual responsibility. Away from capitalism, economic responsibility, and personal acceptance.
"We are a Country in favor of redistribution, national weakness and reduced standard of living and lower and lower levels of personal freedom.
"My regret, Lord, is that our young people, including those in my own family, never will know what America was like or might have been. They will pay the price in their reduced standard of living, and most especially, reduced freedom.
"The takers outvoted the producers. In response to this, I have turned to my Bible and in II Peter, Chapter 1, verses 4-9 it says: 'To faith we are to add goodness; to goodness, knowledge; to knowledge, self control; to self-control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, kindness; to brotherly kindness, love.
"Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of the enterprises that you have helped us build. We ask for your guidance in this drastic time with the drastic decisions that will be made to have any hope of our survival as an American business enterprise.
"Amen."
Mr. Murray is delusional. And, if he doesn't know that all of this is BS and merely a rationalization to get rid of employees by blaming his own mess upon Mr. Obama, then he is not merely deluded but a fool and perhaps a crazy fool.
Certainly he is a partisan and typically a fundamentalist Christian who has been convinced that because he has accepted Jesus he can do pretty much any damn thing he desires. Such a notion is called "cheap grace." And it doesn't work.
The WaPo notes that the New Republic reported Murray Energy required employees (miners) to attend a Romney campaign event. Murray says that's not true. Furthermore, it was "reported that Murray Energy employees have given more than $1.4 million to Republican candidates for federal office since 2007."
That's OK, of course, unless the employees were "directed" to do so or otherwise compromised.
The worst of it, though, is that Murray Energy has had an environmental problem. "Notably, the company has spilled coal slurry into a creek on seven different occasions."
I suppose Mr. Murray would argue that God put that creek there for him to use which is one way God helped him build his company.
What is especially frightening is that if Romney won, such maggots would be crawling all over our political space, devouring those things which we hope will always most represent our country: honor, integrity, freedom, inclusiveness, and a dedication to build a society in which everyone, as Jefferson put it, has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Mr. Murray is unhappy with the way the election went. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it will cost him more money in terms of health care for his employees. But there's more to it. His hatred of Obama is palpable. Thus in his prayer he not so subtly implies that the Obama administration is unAmerican and something foreign, dangerous.
Mr. Murray desires not to come to grips with the facts. Obama, for one thing, is a Christian, and exemplifies Christianity far better than anyone I've heard of or seen who's part of the fundamentalist spectrum. Mr. Obama has lived a life of dedication to the highest ideals of this country. He is our duly elected and legitimate president; he was not chosen, in opposition to the majority of the American people, by the Supreme Court.
Obama believes, and perhaps this is what sticks most in Mr. Murray's craw, that this nation belongs not just or especially to the rich or the whites or those of one particular political stripe, but to everyone and he understands the meaning of commonwealth, whereby we recognize we that we're all in this enterprise of building a society and a nation together and we have a responsibility to one another, and those who have been more fortunate or more successful should have a greater responsibility to those less fortunate and less successful.
God didn't help Mr. Murray build his company. If he'd read his Bible and stop trying to find quotes to justify his perversity, he'd know that the God of his Jesus doesn't care at all about Mr. Murray's company with these exceptions: He cares that Mr. Murray do all he can to ensure that his employees are treated with respect by providing superior working conditions, that they are given a decent wage and have the best health care available.
Damn. That's hard. And that's why the world is full of phony Christians who spout Scripture to avoid the truth. Like Robert E. Murray.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Outrage and Seeking Solutions
[Photo from digitaltrends.com]
This is a guest post by my good friend, Art Woodstone.
To Liberals and other Good People:
Don't let our part in Obama's re-election go to our heads, because we are not often that smart; because most of the time we allow ourselves to be politically neutered, restricting ourselves to narrow choices, such as selecting a president.
The question now becomes: Will we now put serious thought and energy into facing hard facts and into utilizing solutions already available to obviously universal problems?
An illustration: Most people, or at least those of us with a liberal bent, recognize the immutable connection between oil consumption and global warming, but now that we have developed the ability to frack the enormous store of oily rock lying inches below the surface of American soil, it seems that there is no longer much serious or organized interest (if there ever was) in ending our dependence on oil.
Why is that the case? Greed, convenience, and stupid, excessive pride all play a part. And isn't it great that now Americans have, within their borders, the capacity to outproduce all twelve members of OPEC at once? Of course, "fracking" carries with it another whole set of problems, and we'd have to convince China and Russia and other industrialized nations that it is essential we stop polluting the environment before it's too late.
It may, unfortunately, already be too late, but we don't know that for sure, so why abandon hope?
But let's move on to another problematic issue, to which the solution requires no complicated outside support or complaince:
Drugs. "Illegal" drugs.
We permit ourselves the luxury of feeling helpless against the forces of ignorance and piety and the self-perpetuating instruments of government and law when it comes to legalizing illegal drugs. We talk "big" but lack the essential element of change: outrage at the utter, self-righteous stupidity of it all.
The legalization of drugs has many benefits:
1. It would go far toward lowering the national debt.
2. It would certainly diminish, even eliminate, the vast profits realized and laundered by the drug lords.
3. It would enable the government to tax what were formerly illegal drugs and thus beyond the reach of the tax man.
4. It would force the disestablishment of the Drug Enforcement Agency. (While I don't recall exactly how much this agency costs us every year with its investigative and enforcement activities, but it's in the billions of dollars!)
5. It would dramatically reduce the number of incarcerated people, again at a vast savings to the both the U.S. and state governments. (A large portion of people languishing in our prisons are there because of drug-related crimes. I know some people who were imprisoned 20 years after found with a smidgen of marijuana!)
6. And perhaps the most important thing - it would dramatically lessen the murder rate in the U.S. and around the world. The human cost of our insane drug policies is incalculable.
While murder will always be an element of human behavior, the same is true of stupidity, ignorance and bias. And that is why none of the above is likely to happen in our own lifetimes.
But there is hope. Two states have legalized recreational use of marijuana, which is a good sign because for the first time the barrier between stupidity and sanity has been knocked down which may well lead other governmental entities to re-think drug policies which have had such a deleterious effect on our country.
There is hope, if we move toward that essential element of change - the outrage we feel!
To Liberals and other Good People:
Don't let our part in Obama's re-election go to our heads, because we are not often that smart; because most of the time we allow ourselves to be politically neutered, restricting ourselves to narrow choices, such as selecting a president.
The question now becomes: Will we now put serious thought and energy into facing hard facts and into utilizing solutions already available to obviously universal problems?
An illustration: Most people, or at least those of us with a liberal bent, recognize the immutable connection between oil consumption and global warming, but now that we have developed the ability to frack the enormous store of oily rock lying inches below the surface of American soil, it seems that there is no longer much serious or organized interest (if there ever was) in ending our dependence on oil.
Why is that the case? Greed, convenience, and stupid, excessive pride all play a part. And isn't it great that now Americans have, within their borders, the capacity to outproduce all twelve members of OPEC at once? Of course, "fracking" carries with it another whole set of problems, and we'd have to convince China and Russia and other industrialized nations that it is essential we stop polluting the environment before it's too late.
It may, unfortunately, already be too late, but we don't know that for sure, so why abandon hope?
But let's move on to another problematic issue, to which the solution requires no complicated outside support or complaince:
Drugs. "Illegal" drugs.
We permit ourselves the luxury of feeling helpless against the forces of ignorance and piety and the self-perpetuating instruments of government and law when it comes to legalizing illegal drugs. We talk "big" but lack the essential element of change: outrage at the utter, self-righteous stupidity of it all.
The legalization of drugs has many benefits:
1. It would go far toward lowering the national debt.
2. It would certainly diminish, even eliminate, the vast profits realized and laundered by the drug lords.
3. It would enable the government to tax what were formerly illegal drugs and thus beyond the reach of the tax man.
4. It would force the disestablishment of the Drug Enforcement Agency. (While I don't recall exactly how much this agency costs us every year with its investigative and enforcement activities, but it's in the billions of dollars!)
5. It would dramatically reduce the number of incarcerated people, again at a vast savings to the both the U.S. and state governments. (A large portion of people languishing in our prisons are there because of drug-related crimes. I know some people who were imprisoned 20 years after found with a smidgen of marijuana!)
6. And perhaps the most important thing - it would dramatically lessen the murder rate in the U.S. and around the world. The human cost of our insane drug policies is incalculable.
While murder will always be an element of human behavior, the same is true of stupidity, ignorance and bias. And that is why none of the above is likely to happen in our own lifetimes.
But there is hope. Two states have legalized recreational use of marijuana, which is a good sign because for the first time the barrier between stupidity and sanity has been knocked down which may well lead other governmental entities to re-think drug policies which have had such a deleterious effect on our country.
There is hope, if we move toward that essential element of change - the outrage we feel!
Boehner and McConnell - A Cause for Weeping
The Republican leaders in Congress are children. The United States is being led by people who know not how to act as adults. The limp-wristed McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, and the weepy John Boehner, House Majority Leader, have once again exhibited the kind of behavior that most of us left behind on the elementary school playground!
According to the New York Times, on election night, when President Obama was certain of victory, he immediately reached out to these two members of the other party (or should we say the Opposition?) in an attempt to mend fences and begin working on the problems our country faces, in particular the one represented by the term, "fiscal cliff."
In both cases, these Republican nogoodniks refused to take the call of the president of these United States. They were "sleeping," the president was told. It's hard to imagine a more deliberate snub, a more childish response to the election, at least by two men who are supposed to be responsible persons and who have in their hands the power to help fix many of the problems that we face as a nation.
For four long years, these two men have neglected their sworn duty in order to feed and maintain a vendetta against the first "black" president of this country. For four long years, these two men have sold their souls in a misguided and futile attempt to oust this first "black" president and regain absolute power.
Notice I'm using the word, "black," as I am convinced that the hatred and animosity shown for Mr. Obama as president is fueled by racism, and is unparalleled in the history of our country, even taking into consideration the hell that Mr. Clinton received at the hands of the same Republican Party.
But whatever the reason, we are stunned that these two Republican leaders would give the president the "finger". Not surprised, but still stunned. And we are discouraged. For several seconds we thought that with a decisive Obama victory, they would realize that their failure to lead and their pursuit of a vendetta against the duly elected president of the United States was rejected by the majority of the people of this land and they would change their ways.
There was a hint this might be possible when, shortly after the election, Boehner commented to the effect that the Affordable Care Act was the law of the land and while it may need some adjustment, he would not work to repeal it. As soon as this slight mention of possible cooperation and bipartisanship was made public, he "walked back" those words!
Boehner and McConnell have the spines of jellyfish. Yellow must be their favorite color as they are both cowards! I don't know why Boehner cries all the time, but he certainly gives the nation cause for weeping.
The New York Times article is here.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
The Party of NO knows now: "The best is yet to come"
When President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, Republican leaders in Congress - such as O'Connell and Boehner and Cantor - and elsewhere vowed that their main goal for the next four years was to ensure Obama's defeat in 2012. They would, they said, do everything in their power to achieve that goal!
To this end, they instructed Republican members of Congress to vote as a bloc in opposition to Mr. Obama's agenda. They voted "No!" on almost everything. They obstructed programs suggested and people nominated by Mr. Obama. Hundreds of judges and other officials, remain waiting in the wings yet to be confirmed.
For four long years, the needs of our country have been held hostage by the petulance of a political party which today seems increasingly irrelevant. Or, as Brian Williams, put it when speaking about the unspeakable Donald Trump, he and they "have passed the last exit toward relevance."
Even though many members of the media, and I'll mention Chuck Todd as an example, have tried to paint a picture of shared guilt for the gridlock that has stifled any possibility of progress in this nation such a picture is out of focus. Todd was wrong as were other pundits who said the Democrats were just as recalcitrant to compromise and just as partisan as the Republicans. That's a false equivalence. It is not true.
What is amazing is that the President, in spite of fully-funded hatred of his very being, was able to accomplish a huge number of things in his first term as we have reported here previously! The list goes on and on. Click here.
We must ask ourselves what kind of people have such a need for power they ignore the needs of the country for political gain? Many of the Republican leaders claim to be devout, "born-again" Christians. But their religion is a sham! How could anyone, elected by the people to represent them in Congress, leave their constituents in the lurch to fend for themselves because of a political vendetta?
We're speaking of matters of morality, of ethics, of justice, of an understanding of what "commonwealth" means. These Republican leaders fall short in every category! Their morality, ethics and sense of justice must be disavowed. They have failed those who put them in office, their peers in Congress, their president, and their country.
The fallout from the election reflects discontent with Republican rule. The election shows the Senate retaining a Democratic majority, albeit a slim one. And we know there are several DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) who would probably be happier in the Republican Party. They can be useful at times, however, if they can be pressured to vote for the people and not against the people.
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives remains under the control of the extremist Republicans. It is hard to believe that Michele Bachmann retained her seat. The people residing in her Minnesota district must have serious unresolved ethical and moral issues, for this woman is a freak of nature and does not belong in any legislative body!
But there's much more to consider. John Amato, in his article, "America Elects A Liberal Agenda," published today at Crooks and Liars, says this about the election:
"America repudiated conservatism completely after the smoke began to clear. ... [P]resident Obama withstood terrible odds of reelection after the rise of the Tea Party and their rout in the 2010 midterms. Conservatives were licking their chops in anticipation of 2012 and [...] they left with their tails between their legs. Most of the right and some in the media said that Obama didn't put out an agenda for reelection, but he did propose a program built on liberal ideology...
"Obama ran on regulations for Wall Street.
"Obama ran on defending Social Security and Medicare.
"Obama ran on immigration reform and the Dream Act.
"Obama ran on raising taxes on the wealthy.
"Obama ran on letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
"Obama ran on income equality for the working class.
"Equal rights for the LGBT community."
[...]
"President Obama won a mandate with this victory and don't let anyone say otherwise. ...
So we begin another cycle. Two important questions are: 1) Will the president carry out the liberal agenda, standing strong, even in the face of hostility and opposition? 2) Will the Republican Party realize that Americans have decisively rejected their partisan politics and their disdain for compromise and change their ways?
Perhaps Mr. Obama has given us a signal, a sign, a light with which to view the direction he will lead the country. In his acceptance speech, he said "The best is yet to come."
The best is yet to come. The best is yet to come. The best is yet to come!
Is it possible that, at long last, our dream for this country - a dream where all people count, where people come before profits or politics, where war becomes a last resort and not a means of securing oil fields or banana plantations for American corporations, where people are free to love whom they wish, to believe what they wish or to believe nothing at all, where the government is not seen as a problem but as a means of working together to accomplish goals which benefit all the people and not mainly the rich?
The best is yet to come! YES!
To this end, they instructed Republican members of Congress to vote as a bloc in opposition to Mr. Obama's agenda. They voted "No!" on almost everything. They obstructed programs suggested and people nominated by Mr. Obama. Hundreds of judges and other officials, remain waiting in the wings yet to be confirmed.
For four long years, the needs of our country have been held hostage by the petulance of a political party which today seems increasingly irrelevant. Or, as Brian Williams, put it when speaking about the unspeakable Donald Trump, he and they "have passed the last exit toward relevance."
Even though many members of the media, and I'll mention Chuck Todd as an example, have tried to paint a picture of shared guilt for the gridlock that has stifled any possibility of progress in this nation such a picture is out of focus. Todd was wrong as were other pundits who said the Democrats were just as recalcitrant to compromise and just as partisan as the Republicans. That's a false equivalence. It is not true.
What is amazing is that the President, in spite of fully-funded hatred of his very being, was able to accomplish a huge number of things in his first term as we have reported here previously! The list goes on and on. Click here.
We must ask ourselves what kind of people have such a need for power they ignore the needs of the country for political gain? Many of the Republican leaders claim to be devout, "born-again" Christians. But their religion is a sham! How could anyone, elected by the people to represent them in Congress, leave their constituents in the lurch to fend for themselves because of a political vendetta?
We're speaking of matters of morality, of ethics, of justice, of an understanding of what "commonwealth" means. These Republican leaders fall short in every category! Their morality, ethics and sense of justice must be disavowed. They have failed those who put them in office, their peers in Congress, their president, and their country.
The fallout from the election reflects discontent with Republican rule. The election shows the Senate retaining a Democratic majority, albeit a slim one. And we know there are several DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) who would probably be happier in the Republican Party. They can be useful at times, however, if they can be pressured to vote for the people and not against the people.
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives remains under the control of the extremist Republicans. It is hard to believe that Michele Bachmann retained her seat. The people residing in her Minnesota district must have serious unresolved ethical and moral issues, for this woman is a freak of nature and does not belong in any legislative body!
But there's much more to consider. John Amato, in his article, "America Elects A Liberal Agenda," published today at Crooks and Liars, says this about the election:
"America repudiated conservatism completely after the smoke began to clear. ... [P]resident Obama withstood terrible odds of reelection after the rise of the Tea Party and their rout in the 2010 midterms. Conservatives were licking their chops in anticipation of 2012 and [...] they left with their tails between their legs. Most of the right and some in the media said that Obama didn't put out an agenda for reelection, but he did propose a program built on liberal ideology...
"Obama ran on regulations for Wall Street.
"Obama ran on defending Social Security and Medicare.
"Obama ran on immigration reform and the Dream Act.
"Obama ran on raising taxes on the wealthy.
"Obama ran on letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
"Obama ran on income equality for the working class.
"Equal rights for the LGBT community."
[...]
"President Obama won a mandate with this victory and don't let anyone say otherwise. ...
So we begin another cycle. Two important questions are: 1) Will the president carry out the liberal agenda, standing strong, even in the face of hostility and opposition? 2) Will the Republican Party realize that Americans have decisively rejected their partisan politics and their disdain for compromise and change their ways?
Perhaps Mr. Obama has given us a signal, a sign, a light with which to view the direction he will lead the country. In his acceptance speech, he said "The best is yet to come."
The best is yet to come. The best is yet to come. The best is yet to come!
Is it possible that, at long last, our dream for this country - a dream where all people count, where people come before profits or politics, where war becomes a last resort and not a means of securing oil fields or banana plantations for American corporations, where people are free to love whom they wish, to believe what they wish or to believe nothing at all, where the government is not seen as a problem but as a means of working together to accomplish goals which benefit all the people and not mainly the rich?
The best is yet to come! YES!
The Silver Spoon
Do you hear the sound of cheering?
It's all over the world! People are cheering. Except for Mittens, Karl Rover, Donald Trumped, the Kochy Brothers, Huckabuckabee, Billy Grahamism, the neocons and others of that neanderthalic tribe.
The good guys won!
The people won!
Women won!
The sick won!
Old people won!
Young people won!
Hispanics won!
Blacks won!
All colors won!
Gays won!
And peace has a chance.
Mittens was born with a silver spoon. The "good life" was handed him on a plate. It's no wonder he took so long to concede. How could he lose? He was supposed to win.
It's hard, when you're born with a silver spoon, to have it yanked unceremoniously from your mouth.
Maybe Mitt can move to Mexico like grandpa. He could have as many wives as he wants. And more kids. He could run for president of Mexico.
The Party of NO lost.
Adios, Mitt!
Monday, November 5, 2012
Christian Fascism Threatens the U.S.
Fascism is defined thusly: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Notice the word, "typically." That word opens the door for variations on the theme. German fascism under Hitler in the 1930s was different from Italian fascism under Mussolini, or Spanish fascism under Franco.
Today, in the United States, we are seeing a broad and well-funded movement toward our own specific type of fascism which agrees with the above definition but adds a component ever more dangerous - religion.
It is fascinating to observe that the Roman Catholic Church has combined with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Protestant fundamentalists - some being independent, others connected to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Presbyterian Church, USA, or other conservative/fundamentalist denominations, to form a coalition in order to elect a president other than Mr. Obama. It has less to do with liking Mr. Romney or believing Mr. Romney has the ability to be a good president, than it has to do with the fact Mr. Obama is black and a Democrat and they cannot push him around or force him to change his political stance to suit their desires.
Fifty years ago in the United States, the Protestant majority was appalled at the thought of a Roman Catholic president. A Mormon presidency would have been utterly impossible by any stretch of the imagination. Mormons were and are, as described even today by most Southern Baptists and Billy Graham, a cult. And the word, "cult," is not a positive description. Mormons were out of any mainstream. They were weird and believed weird things and their theology could not be called "Christian" by any stretch of the imagination.
Southern Baptists and fundamentalist Protestants fifty years ago had no use for the Roman Church. If anything they believed the Roman Church to be of Satan and a blot on Christendom and the antithesis of what the Christian church should look like.
They still believe that! Not only so, but Roman Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants still believe that Mormonism is a cult of the devil and is not only not Christian, but anti-Christian. You cannot make me believe that millions of people identifying as Catholic or fundamentalist Protestants have suddenly make a major, earth-shaking reversal in how they view the Mormon organization in just a few months!
The Roman Church has insisted throughout its history that Protestants were doomed to spend eternity in hell. Their cry was always "No salvation except through the Catholic Church!" Protestants, especially the fundamentalists, were just as adamant with their beliefs: Catholics will burn in hell forever and ever for they have paganized the Christian faith with their saints and candles and crazy beliefs such as that the cracker and wine change physically into the body and blood of Christ when the priest says the magic words in the mass.
Both of these groups thought the Latter Day Saints were so far beyond hope that it wasn't worth much discussion. After all, what sane person could possibly accept the Book of Mormon? Who could stifle reason to conclude that an uneducated character named Joseph Smith "discovered" some gold tablets on a hillside (which no one else ever saw) and that these tablets were the word of God, telling how some Jews ended up in the area known as the United States and that that's where Jesus would return to earth to establish his kingdom?
Every group thought the other groups believed nonsense and were outside the pale of salvation.
So what happened? These disparate groups have coalesced for several reasons. One, they dislike Barack Obama. A great deal of this dislike is racist in nature. White fundamentalists in the southern part of the U.S. still have large pockets of people who dislike blacks, who would like to redo the Civil War and enslave blacks once again. The Mormon church disallowed blacks into the priesthood or full membership in the Mormon organization until relatively recently. While you might not find such overt racism in the Roman church, you would certainly find it among Catholics in the south.
There is a distinctive feeling "out there" that a black person should not be president or is, by virtue of his color, unqualified to be president.
Secondly, there remains a fear of "Communism" in this country, although many, if not most people, could not even define the term. But "Communism" becomes significant because it is seen as anti-religious, or even anti-Christian, in spite of the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church survived the worst of Communism as it developed in the Soviet Union. The extreme right in the United States, controlled to a large extent by large corporate entities (Koch Brothers) and church leaders have used this fear of Communism to great effect, portraying President Obama as either a Communist, a Marxist or just a plain dupe who is used by the Marxists to instigate their plan to take over the country.
Thirdly, all three of these religious entities share some common beliefs relative to abortion, birth control, separation of church and state, etc. The Republican Party has become an extreme right party which has adopted extreme views on all of these issues. Thus, members of the various religions have common ground on which to stand - the Republican Party - against a president who they have been taught to perceive is anti-religious and anti-democratic.
Paul Ryan is one of the most vicious liars ever to run as a vice president in either party. Ryan is a Roman Catholic although his beliefs owe more to Ayn Rand than the Pope! According to the Huffington Post, Ryan, yesterday evening, "in a town hall-style call, warned social conservatives "that 'Judeo-Christian' values were at risk if President Barack Obama is reelected.
"'This is a huge election,' said Ryan. 'Please know that Mitt Romney and I understand the stakes. We understand the stakes of where this country is headed. We understand the stakes of our fundamental freedoms being on the line, like religious freedom -- such as how they're being compromised in Obamacare.'"
Then he said "that Obama's vision was 'a path that grows government, restricts freedom and liberty and compromises those values -- those Judeo-Christian, Western civilization values that made us a great and exceptional nation in the first place.'"
You can see how Ryan is playing to the fears of the hoi polloi. Barack Obama is a Christian. He is a believer. He is a far better Christian than Paul Ryan will ever be! But that's all beside the point. This is not a Christian nation and we're not electing a pope!
Everything Ryan said in that speech is a lie! Everything!
But what is happening is not so obvious to people who believe the crap that spews from the mouths of Republicans in this election.
Today, November 4, Sarah Palin finally got around to "endorsing" Mitt Romney. Why did it take her so long? Well, no one knows how Palin's mind works, or if it works at all. But we do know that she is an ultra-conservative Christian fundamentalist extremist who was, a few years ago, anointed to become the Christian president who would usher in a new Christian government in which the Bible as interpreted by her confederates in an international Pentecostal coalition would become the basis for our law.
Sarah Palin, as a Christian, must choke on the fact that a Mormon might actually become president.
But she, as many other extreme right Christianists, has made her peace with that fact because Romney is more likely than Obama to carry out the Christian extremist agenda and perhaps even pave the way for a "true" Christian president in the future.
All of this is brewing and fomenting in our country as we head to the polls. There is a monumental push to break down the wall of separation between church and state. Religious groups, Christian or otherwise, are forbidden by law to endorse candidates for public office. Partisan political activity threatens their tax-exempt status.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to care much anymore. The IRS, it seems, has given up on enforcing the law! Again from the Huffington Post: "...[A]ttorneys who specialize in tax law for religious purposes, as well as advocacy groups who monitor the cases, say they know of no IRS inquiries in the past three years into claims of partisanship by houses of worship..."
Which means that churches now feel they can do whatever they wish without fear. Even Billy Graham and his Association has taken out full-page ads in newspapers around the country telling people, not who to vote for, but to vote for the one who promises to best keep extremist promises relative to abortion, contraception, church/state separation, etc. Which means Romney, wink, wink!
Megachurch pastors have often bent this law and now are emboldened to state from the pulpit who their parishioners should vote for.
None of this bodes well for our democracy. Our democracy has been dramatically weakened in this election cycle by the infusion of dirty money from groups with an extremist agenda hidden from public view. We know that in our country, state and business leaders have come together and monies from the latter to the former have paved the way for laws to be written which favor, not the people, but the corporations. The oligarchy has so much power in hand that a dictatorship of the extreme right is not only possible but probable or may have already taken place and remains hidden until its power is concentrated to the extent it cannot be struck down.
The extremist religious groups are joining hands with this budding dictatorship for their own purposes.
It may all fall apart under the stress of conflicting needs and desires, but there's always the chance (as we have seen) that the various parties will be able to join to rule if they are given enough incentive...thus the dictatorship of the extreme right [purchased with secret/dirty money] will rule (indeed their rule may be validated tomorrow!) and strengthen its power by allowing the extremist religious coalition to achieve their social and religious goals.
Then, my friends, we will have become officially a Christian fascist country!
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Mitt Romney is fundamentally flawed
It is one thing to stretch the truth a little bit; to tell a "white lie," as if there were such a thing. It's quite another to live a lie, to pretend to be something fundamentally different from what you really are.
Romney is not merely a person who lies. Although he may be capable of telling the truth, he can tell a lie just as easily if it suits his purpose(s). His system of ethics is bereft of the ability to care about the difference between what is true and right and what is false and wrong. Perhaps he does not realize this fact. Perhaps he was brought up to believe that as a Mormon everything he did and said was justified whether or not it accorded with the facts or with what was just or what was honest.
Certainly, he is a complicated man. But we are all complicated people. That does not excuse his perpetual lies. He is a convoluted man, often appearing to be driven more by greed than anything else. His career, especially as it unfolded at Bain Capital, would seem to be confirmation of that. He is also driven by a lust for power, as we have seen in his campaign to attain the presidency. Lust, in whatever form, is a force that has destroyed many a basically decent person, but lust for power in someone who is fundamentally a liar is particularly potent and disturbing.
Romney's lies are well documented. [Read through the other posts on this blog]. He's lied about his record as governor of Massachusetts. He's said he was a job creator but his tenure at Bain led to the destruction of thousands of jobs for which he was richly rewarded! He's lied about his tenure as an Olympic official. He's lied about President Obama on so many different occasions we'd need a calculator to add them all up. For example, he lied when he said Obama cut millions from Medicare to bolster Obamacare. He lied about his position on the bailout - his opposition to it and then he lied by saying he was at least partly responsible for Detroit's recovery. He lied by charging Obama with sending auto companies into bankruptcy and suggesting that the president arranged to have Jeeps made in China.
He's changed his position and colors as easily as a chameleon. He was pro-choice, and now he's a hard-line anti-abortion candidate. Or maybe he's back to pro-choice? He was anti-FEMA and now he's pro-FEMA. He lied by pretending his Massachusetts health-care program was nothing like Obamacare when Obama's plan was modeled after the Massachusetts program.
But perhaps a recent example is most telling as to exactly what kind of person is Mr. Romney. What follows comes from an article at Salon.com by Jillian Rayfield, titled "Romney Camp spent $5,000 to stage storm relief event."
A couple of days ago, while watching TV, I saw a video of Romney in Dayton, Ohio, busily collecting "donated" supplies for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. At the time, I didn't think much of it, other than to wonder if this was a ploy as was Ryan's soup kitchen fiasco a few weeks earlier.
Well, it turns out to indeed have been a ploy to play on the sympathies of voters (especially "undecided" ones) in the state of Ohio! The whole thing was a setup. It began as a campaign event but Romney and friends decided they could and should try to set things up so as to make it appear that the candidate had a great heart and really cared about the "47 percent" that he disparaged not long before.
What happened, according to Ms. Rayfield, is that the Romney bunch bought $5,000 worth of "goodies" at a local Walmart which were promptly "put on display" as "donations."
"Supporters were told to bring supplies to the event and then bring them up to a table where Romney would be sitting with Ohio Sen. Rob Portman. 'To complete the photo-op, Romney would lead his crew carrying the goods out of the gymnasium and into the Penske rental truck parked outside,' McKay Coppins of Buzzfeed writes."
It worked like this: Volunteers would grab one of these "donations," and then walk up and give them to Romney who "took them, smiled, and offered an earnest 'Thank You.'"
It was all a lie! But the final straw perhaps, was that those working on Hurricane Sandy's "battlefields," didn't want these kinds of donations. They didn't know how to get them in place, or where to store them and didn't have the labor necessary to deal with them. What they needed were monetary donations.
So, while Romney's smiling for the cameras and pretending that people are actually donating goods for those suffering from Sandy's destructive power, the real "rescuers" are saying "Don't send that stuff! Send money!"
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Romney's "noble" lies
This is a guest post by my good friend, Art Woodstone.
The only literature to be found in my dentist's waiting room includes a copy of the Bible, a four-page exposition detailing the divinity of Christ, three copies of a book by a televangelist and two large-type back issues of Reader's Digest.
I haven't decided yet whether or not she's a good dentist but I thought I had conclusively established that she was a political innocent when, while she had me in the chair with my mouth stuck open, she volunteered her opinion as to why Romney kept shifting his beliefs during the campaign.
"He knows he can do a good job as president but has to lie in order to win," she explained.
I figured it was safest to keep my mouth shut, or in this case, wide open.
It turns out a lot of pros, who could hardly be classified as innocents, share her opinion. Below is the key paragraph from a story in Slate, explaining why newspapers in the past endorsed the Democrat but have now switched their support to the Republican, Romney:
"At least 21 newspapers that endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 have endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012. Half of these endorsements are couched in the hope that Romney hornswaggled Republican primary voters and will govern as a moderate. 'Like his primary rivals,' editorialized Florida Today, 'we never bought Romney's newfound conservative purity. During the presidential debates, Romney wisely resumed his identity as a pro-growth pragmatist.' And 'pro-growth,' in the Space Coast region covered by Florida Today means helping out NASA. Romney has pledged to do that without pledging to increase the budget."
That reminds me of the twisted logic Romney's son, Craig, used to justify why Mitt tripped his daughter-in-law in order to win a footrace at a family picnic:
"My dad cheats and that's what we need in the White House."
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Romney - Get rid of FEMA ...
...let the financially-challenged states pick up the tab for environmental disasters.
Every Republican living in the path of Hurricane Sandy needs to watch this video and carefully consider its implications...
Friday, October 26, 2012
Hostile takeover by Robert Kennedy
A Hostile Takeover of Our Country
Treasonous, noxious, thieving, tyrannical
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for EcoWatch
from the foreword to Billionaires & Ballot Bandits
Friday, October 26, 2012
American democracy is under assault.
In one super-PAC alone, Karl Rove and the Enron grifter Ed Gillespie, have assembled $200 million from big polluters and Wall Street moguls to buy the 2012 election.
Two of the Koch Brothers, Charles and David, pledged $130 million to elect candidates who favor unrestrained corporate profiteering.
The senators and congressmen they fund and elect are not representing the United States—they are representing Koch and its oil industry cronies, Big Pharma, and the Wall Street banksters currently mounting a hostile takeover of our government.
I have no problem characterizing these corporate-centric super-PACs as treasonous. We are now in a free fall toward old-fashioned oligarchy; noxious, thieving and tyrannical.
The most corporate-friendly Supreme Court since the Gilded Age had declared in its notorious Citizens United decision that corporations are people and that money is speech. Those who have the most money now have the loudest voices in our democracy while poor Americans are mute.
And the money is talking; in 97 percent of federal elections over the past two decades, the best-funded candidates were victorious.
Read Kennedy's entire A Hostile Takeover of our Country in Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal and Election in 9 Easy Steps by Greg Palast. The New York Times bestseller includes a 48-page comic book insert by artist Ted Rall.
Treasonous, noxious, thieving, tyrannical
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for EcoWatch
from the foreword to Billionaires & Ballot Bandits
Friday, October 26, 2012
American democracy is under assault.In one super-PAC alone, Karl Rove and the Enron grifter Ed Gillespie, have assembled $200 million from big polluters and Wall Street moguls to buy the 2012 election.
Two of the Koch Brothers, Charles and David, pledged $130 million to elect candidates who favor unrestrained corporate profiteering.
The senators and congressmen they fund and elect are not representing the United States—they are representing Koch and its oil industry cronies, Big Pharma, and the Wall Street banksters currently mounting a hostile takeover of our government.
I have no problem characterizing these corporate-centric super-PACs as treasonous. We are now in a free fall toward old-fashioned oligarchy; noxious, thieving and tyrannical.
The most corporate-friendly Supreme Court since the Gilded Age had declared in its notorious Citizens United decision that corporations are people and that money is speech. Those who have the most money now have the loudest voices in our democracy while poor Americans are mute.
And the money is talking; in 97 percent of federal elections over the past two decades, the best-funded candidates were victorious.
America, the world’s proud template for democracy and a robust middle
class, is now listing toward oligarchy and corporate kleptocracy.
America today is looking more and more like a colonial economy, with a system increasingly tilted toward enriching the wealthy 1 percent and serving the mercantile needs of multinational corporations with little allegiance to our country.
These radical forces already dominate the national press, with Fox News and talk radio snugly in the pocket of the corporate Right.
This is the first time in American history that corporate and media interests have been so clearly and so perilously aligned.
America today is looking more and more like a colonial economy, with a system increasingly tilted toward enriching the wealthy 1 percent and serving the mercantile needs of multinational corporations with little allegiance to our country.
These radical forces already dominate the national press, with Fox News and talk radio snugly in the pocket of the corporate Right.
This is the first time in American history that corporate and media interests have been so clearly and so perilously aligned.
With the media in their hands, and unlimited money, the final
strategy of Rove, Koch, the Chamber of Commerce, and others of that ilk
is to permanently cripple representative democracy by stopping Americans
from voting.
A boatload of new Jim Crow laws target Democrats by erecting impediments that deter poor and minority communities, senior citizens, and students from exercising their franchise.
Voter suppression is a crime.
A boatload of new Jim Crow laws target Democrats by erecting impediments that deter poor and minority communities, senior citizens, and students from exercising their franchise.
Voter suppression is a crime.
In Billionaires & Ballot Bandits,
Greg Palast details each of these devious scams for disenfranchising
vulnerable voters . . . but also, crucially, Palast here follows the
money that powers the machinery of democracy’s destruction.
This is not a partisan issue. Clearly the GOP agenda is to suppress votes, as Karl Rove has repeatedly and unashamedly signaled. But Billionaires & Ballot Bandits exposes the vote-count blindness, biases, venality, and ballot gaming by Democrats as well. I don’t believe there are Republican children or Democratic children.
Every American citizen ought to have the right to vote and everybody ought to have the right to clean air and clean water, to integrity and transparency in the marketplace, and to a functioning democracy.
This is not a partisan issue. Clearly the GOP agenda is to suppress votes, as Karl Rove has repeatedly and unashamedly signaled. But Billionaires & Ballot Bandits exposes the vote-count blindness, biases, venality, and ballot gaming by Democrats as well. I don’t believe there are Republican children or Democratic children.
Every American citizen ought to have the right to vote and everybody ought to have the right to clean air and clean water, to integrity and transparency in the marketplace, and to a functioning democracy.
Palast is the last of the great, old-fashioned muckraking
investigative reporters. He’s an “outlier,” unafraid of corporate
tyrants. Together, we have been investigating and exposing voter
suppression for years. In 2008, we co-wrote a story for Rolling Stone warning of the ugly future of a new Jim Crow operation.
Now, it's here.
Now, it's here.
Voter suppression is real. And it’s happening to YOU. But there is
something that you can do to prevent it. That is the message of Palast’s
book.
Remember, this is YOUR democracy. You can do all the campaigning you want, but if your vote isn’t counted, you’re going to lose the presidency—and our democracy.
Read our book Billionaires & Ballot Bandits. Pass on the link www.BallotBandits.org and download the 7 Ways to Beat the Ballot Bandits. And get the word out! There’s still time to steal back your vote..
Remember, this is YOUR democracy. You can do all the campaigning you want, but if your vote isn’t counted, you’re going to lose the presidency—and our democracy.
Read our book Billionaires & Ballot Bandits. Pass on the link www.BallotBandits.org and download the 7 Ways to Beat the Ballot Bandits. And get the word out! There’s still time to steal back your vote..
Read Kennedy's entire A Hostile Takeover of our Country in Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal and Election in 9 Easy Steps by Greg Palast. The New York Times bestseller includes a 48-page comic book insert by artist Ted Rall.
Senator James Inhofe wins the Sixth Annual Rubber Dodo Award!
The Center for Biological Diversity has awarded the Sixth Annual Rubber Dodo Award to the neanderthalic Senator James Inhofe representing the great state of Oklahoma in the United States Senate.
Inhofe has a reputation: Just when you assume a U.S. Senator couldn't be more ideological or just plain stupid than, say, Tom Coburn, also from Oklahoma, Inhofe pops up to challenge that assumption.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)












