Monthly Archives: March 2013

His Highness Obama?

Posted on by

Right wing nitwits continue to claim that President Obama has usurped the powers of Congress in order to pursue his liberal, socialist agenda. They derisively refer to him as King Obama or Emperor Obama.

Ironically, he very nearly earned such a title.

According to Jon Meacham’s book, Thomas Jefferson – The Art of Power, many of the Founding Fathers were strongly in favor of creating a new monarchy following the end of the Revolutionary War. Some wanted to apply for a sovereign of the house of Hanover. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton was said to favor the establishment of a monarchy with a family compact, placing the crown upon the head of a foreign prince.

Thankfully, Hamilton and the rest of his faction were overruled.

Even when the Constitutional Convention agreed to elect the head of our government, John Adams proposed that the president be called “His Highness the President of the United States and protector of their liberties.”

Imagine the knots in the knickers of Tea Party “Patriots” if they actually had to refer to Barack Obama this way.

Let Them Eat Horse!

Posted on by

According to new studies, 1 in 3 Americans believe that hamburger tainted with horse meat should be given to the poor. In essence, they’re saying, “I wouldn’t eat it, but it’s good enough for the poor.”

Of course, in the minds of Teapublican deficit hawks, the poor are merely freeloaders who don’t deserve what the hard-working job creators enjoy. But why stop with horse meat? Why not subject the poor to other indignities?

For example, we could give them all of our outdated and spoiled food. Instead of paying rent for community food shelves, we could just throw the food in dumpsters and turn all of the poor into dumpster-divers.

Why waste perfectly good medicines on the poor? This is a perfect opportunity to get rid of expired medicines and avoid polluting the environment at the same time. And you know all of those medicines that have been deemed unsafe for consumption? If we gave those to the poor, we’d eventually have less poor – especially if we quit wasting money on MedicAid and hospitalization.

We could save even more money by throwing all of the poor out of public housing. And why waste money on educating poor children? If they learn too much, they’ll just call for class warfare. Finally, why not build a fence around our nation’s poorest land and let the poor create their own country (it worked for Native Americans). We could surround it with video cameras and broadcast it on a network channel as the hottest new reality show.

We could call it Les Miserables America.

Does Mitch McConnell Deserve The Title “Leader?”

Posted on by

Following President Obama’s dinner with Senate Republicans, the invitees were asked to comment on the evening. All said it was productive and one stated that he was surprised to learn that the president had previously offered a variety of spending cuts to prevent sequestration.

Really?!!!

This is surprising on a couple of fronts. First, the president’s proposed budget cuts have been chronicled in the national media for many months. They even have been listed on the White House website for anyone with enough curiosity to read. Second, it would appear that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is guilty of sabotaging the budget negotiations by failing to communicate with members of his own party.

How can the president hope to negotiate deficit reduction when the Minority “Leader” fails to lead?

Of course, McConnell’s failure should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed his “leadership” the past four years. In the days immediately following the election of President Obama, McConnell famously stated that his number one priority was to assure that Obama would be a one-term president.

Try as he might, McConnell even failed at that.

Despite a record number of filibusters, stonewalling, caterwauling, and every other form of obstruction, President Obama was re-elected in a landslide. Now it seems McConnell has even failed to keep his budget sabotage secret.

McConnell’s failures should not only assure defeat in his own re-election efforts. He should be locked out of any further negotiations. By ignoring McConnell and Speaker John Boehner, Congress might actually get something done.

Tax Cuts For The Rich, Budget Cuts For The Poor.

Posted on by

Following are a few numbers that clearly show the results of more than 40 years of Republican economic policies:

1 percent of Americans now control more than 40 percent of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 40 percent of Americans control 0.2 percent of the wealth.

46.2 million Americans are living in poverty. 3.9 million working Americans are paid at or below the minimum wage. 12 million Americans are unemployed. 650,000 Americans are homeless. 50 million Americans, including 17 million children, don’t know where their next meal is coming from. 48.6 million don’t have health insurance.

Naturally, Teapublicans in Congress want to protect these people from further harm. I’m referring, of course, to the 1 percent! Even though taxes for the wealthy are at historic lows, Teapublicans believe they’re overtaxed. They absolutely refuse to consider asking these people to pay one more cent of their enormous wealth.

Those other people, according to Teapublican leaders, are merely the freeloaders who rely on the federal government for assistance. 

Is it any wonder, then, that Congress is locked in a budget standoff with the president? The austerity cuts resulting from sequestration will cut 9 percent from unemployment checks and $175 million from energy assistance for the poor. Sequestration will cut rental assistance to 125,000 low-income families. It will put 100,000 previously homeless back on the streets. It will cut 70,000 kids from Head Start. And it’s projected to cost up to 750,000 jobs.

But these cuts are less cruel than the Teapublican demands to end sequestration. They want to cut SNAP food assistance for the poor. They want to cut Medicaid health assistance for children and low-income families. They want to cut Medicare, Social Security and more.

But don’t worry about the poor. They’ll get by. After all, they still own 0.2 percent of our nation’s wealth.

The Real Hunger Games.

Posted on by

What’s your definition of a third world country?

When I was a child (far too long ago) third world countries were defined as those that didn’t produce enough food for their own citizens. I remember photographs of these faraway places…photos of people with blank stares and bellies bloated by starvation. If I failed to clean my plate, I was reminded that children in China were starving. (I never quite understood how my cleaning a plate helped the Chinese, but I felt sorry for them anyway.)

Today, many of those going hungry are right here…in the United States!

According to the directors of a new film, A Place at the Table, 50 million (1 in 6) Americans, including 17 million children, don’t have reliable sources of food. 1 in 2 American children will need food assistance in their lifetimes.

These aren’t the lazy layabouts who suck off the government teat that Teapublicans want you to think they are. More than 80 percent are from working families. The parents simply don’t earn enough to pay for rent, for clothes, for day care, for school books, for transportation and for food.

How is this possible in America?

It’s made possible by politicians who continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and powerful; by corporations that pay millions to CEOs and poverty level wages to workers; by politicians who refuse to raise the minimum wage even though it has lagged far behind inflation; by politicians who believe in corporate welfare but not human welfare; by politicians who want to balance the budget by cutting food stamps and access to medical care rather than our bloated defense budget.

We can change this.

We can donate to food shelves. We can volunteer to help those in need. We can support government programs to help raise families out of poverty. We can make certain that anyone who is willing to work can afford a roof over their heads and food on the table. We can demand that our politicians prioritize people over corporations. We can demand that they put people above partisanship; children above debt reduction.

We can end hunger in America. 

Since Most Americans Want Compromise, Why Elect Those Who Don’t?

Posted on by

A variety of polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans want their elected officials to compromise. Yet the US House of Representatives is controlled by those who view compromise as a weakness.

Speaker Boehner can’t even bring himself to say the word!

As a result, President Obama was forced to sign an order implementing the most ill-advised, ham-handed budget cuts in history. $89 billion will be indiscriminately cut from every federal program except critical national defense and Social Security. If allowed to stand, these cuts will have devastating effects on our nation – especially those who are out of work, the working poor and others struggling to survive.

These cuts have been made because traditional Republicans are afraid of the Tea Party nitwits within their own party. They’re afraid to end tax loopholes that allow multinational corporations to stash money offshore. They’re afraid to end tax loopholes for the wealthy who are enjoying tax rates that are near historic lows. They’re afraid to compromise with the president for fear of being “primaried” and replaced by even more teabaggers. 

Although, I admit the prospect of even more angry teabaggers in Congress is frightening, it’s time for traditional Republicans to grow a pair.

It’s not that President Obama hasn’t reached across the aisle to avoid sequestration. After stabilizing our economy in the first year of his administration, the president has cut the deficit each year. In fact, we have already seen the largest deficit reductions since the years immediately following World War II. Yet that isn’t enough for the extreme wing of the Republican Party. Teapublicans have refused offers of $2 to $3 in cuts for every $1 of revenue created by eliminating tax loopholes.

Still there is no compromise from the radical right. They refuse to negotiate with the president and they refuse to listen to the American people. Of course, they won’t suffer as the result of their actions. We will.

I hope voters remember that next election.

Arizona Tea Party Patriots Es Muy Loco.

Posted on by

I recently received an invitation to a meeting of the Sedona Tea Party “Patriots” for a “one-time” showing of Behold A Pale Horse.

Based on the title, one assumes this movie will prepare us for the coming political apocalypse. The movie “stars” Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, a leader of the Family Research Council, which has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for defaming gays and lesbians.

The film also includes country music star, Charlie Daniels. Once acclaimed for his music, Daniels jumped on the wagon to Crazytown when President Obama was elected. He accuses Obama of trying to change America into a European-style socialist country, saying that “America will never be America again.”

Of course, the movie isn’t enough crazy for these self-styled “patriots.” The meeting will also address the “looming threat” of United Nations sovereignty, the threat of the UN taking our guns, a mysterious constabulary force that can be used against American citizens, the UN Agenda 21 conspiracy, and more.

After researching these supposed threats, I’m not ready to grab my Bushmaster AR-15 and jump in the bunker quite yet. I am, however, concerned about the coming shortage of tin foil which these “patriots” will need to make their hats.

Recognizing Tea Party “Patriots” For What They Really Are: Liars And Lunatics.

Posted on by

Tea Party Patriots say they want the US to return to the principles of the Constitution. But the principles they cite tend to be more closely aligned to the Articles of Confederation which the Constitution replaced.

For example, unlike the Articles of Confederation which reserved power for the States, the Constitution gives expansive powers to the three branches of the federal government. Yet teabaggers continue to demand a “limited federal government,” and they support their flawed arguments with quotes attributed to our Founding Fathers.

Following claims that President Obama won re-election only as the result of the president promising free stuff to voters, teabaggers have been circulating a quote which they attribute to Benjamin Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” However, this statement was never said or written by Benjamin Franklin. In fact, historians can only guess at the origin of the quote. It is somewhat similar to a statement by Alexis de Toqueville, a French historian, and by Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish lawyer.

Of course, neither of these people had anything to do with the founding of our nation.

Another Tea Party favorite is Thomas Jefferson’s statement taken from a letter to John Adams, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” What the teabaggers fail to acknowledge is that, in the same letter, Jefferson admitted to being hyperbolic in reference to the Shays Rebellion, which resulted from a post Revolutionary War economic depression. “The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.”

The Tea Party tends to think that the Constitution was the result of God’s will. However, it was the result of impassioned debate, argument and compromise. Jefferson, who was representing the US in France at the time of the Constitutional Convention was initially disappointed with the document. He did not like the omission of a declaration of rights that would guarantee “freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trial by jury.”

Unlike the Tea Party, the Founders viewed the Constitution as a start; a document that would continue to evolve. Jefferson told James Madison, “If they [Congress] approve the proposed Convention in all its parts. I shall concur in it cheerfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it work wrong.”

Take that 2nd Amendment absolutists!

In fact, the Founding Fathers and the Tea Party couldn’t be more opposite. While the Founding Fathers relied upon reason and education, the Tea Party relies upon lies, ignorance and fear. While the Fathers demanded separation of church and state, the Tea Party wants to establish a Christian theocracy. While the Fathers believed in compromise, the Tea Party rejects it. 

However, I do believe The Tea Party may yet serve a purpose. Americans may yet see its extreme views as so repulsive that it causes our nation to return to the principles of reason and compromise.

Scalia And Thomas Bring Court’s Ethics Into Question.

Posted on by

As the highest court in the land, judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States should be beyond question. The Court’s decisions should not be influenced by partisan politics, and there should be no lingering doubts that they were the result of undue influence. Yet Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas transparently allow their ideologies to enter into their every decision.

Thomas has also displayed an utter lack of concern for the appearance of impropriety.

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was placed on the Court docket, many expected that Thomas would recuse himself from deliberations. His wife, after all, had been paid large sums of money to lobby against the law. Yet despite Justice Elena Kagan setting an example by recusing herself from the case for having previously served as Solicitor General with the Obama administration, Thomas refused to show the same sense of ethics. He joined in the deliberations as if there was not the slightest hint of a conflict of interest.

In another display of questionable ethics, Justice Scalia made his distaste for the Voter Rights Act obvious through his obnoxious and racially insensitive remarks.

And in a case yet to be heard, Bowman v Monsanto, Thomas has again declined to recuse himself despite the fact that he once served as counsel for Monsanto.

Most local clubs, HOAs and school boards show a better understanding of ethics than that!