Conservatives, Please Stop Calling Yourselves "Constitutionalists"

At first, I hoped it was a fluke.  Maybe a few rogue conservatives that started calling themselves "constitutionalists."  Maybe Sarah Palin loyalists?  Unfortunately, I keep hearing this absurd claim from conservatives.  They really think that they are constitutional loyalists! 

It drives me crazy to hear this, and it doesn't even take a lot to discredit them.  A few simple questions will dispel this ridiculous attempt to make them feel that they are no longer a party of backwards, anti-equality, anti-progress religious fanatics. 

• Do you support the implied right to privacy in our Constitution that has been recognized by our Supreme Court...including the right to choose abortion?
• Do you support the equal protection (14th Amendment) of all people within the boundaries of a state?  Including illegal immigrants?  Including homosexuals who choose to enter into the contract of marriage?
• Do you believe in the freedom of, and from religion, that is provided in the First Amendment?  Including not allowing the government to write any laws respecting the establishment of religion?  (This means no anti-abortion laws.)

There are more questions that I could ask to disqualify any conservative as a "constitutionalist."  However, I've never had to ask more than this.  If they can truthfully answer yes to the above questions, you should probably follow up with something like, "are you aware that you are actually a liberal?"

I do understand that conservatives recognize that there is a bad connotation with the term "conservative."  It tells people that you are against progress.  That you want to go back to the way things used to be and don't want our society to progress...at least not at a reasonable rate.  Don't be mad, conservatives...you've done this to yourselves.  This makes them want to find a new term for themselves that sounds a little more positive.  Unfortunately, the closest term I could find for conservative ideology is "constitutionalists of convenience."  I use this term to mean that they passionately believe in the Constitution when it fits neatly into their ideology.  However, they believe that anything that falls outside of those ideals, like gay marriage and abortion, should not be protected by the Constitution because it offends their religious and moral beliefs.  This means they are willing to ignore the Constitution when it is not convenient for them.

Conservatives, whatever you choose to call yourselves...and I can think of a few more terms if you would like.  Please...I beg you...stop calling yourselves "constitutionalists."  You're just making yourselves look worse.

Fixing Our Broken Welfare System

One thing that drives me absolutely crazy is hearing people complain about the welfare system in our country.  It's not that I don't think the system needs repair.  I know it is greatly ineffective.  My problem is that almost all of the people like to complain about it without offering any idea of how they would fix it.  Making matters worse, many people complain about redistribution of wealth constantly.  Just yesterday, I got into a discussion about this subject based on a person's complaint about us handing out "cash, food stamps and housing allowances to people who chose the life they have."  The absurdity of this claim is only topped by the fact that the same people debating the issue with me wondered why I think many conservatives don't want to help those in poverty.  Maybe because all we hear is constant complaining about doing it?  We'll get back to that.

More importantly, I mentioned during that discussion that I learned a lesson years ago.  I was taught that you will never really be taken seriously if you bring someone a problem.  You should always bring a solution.  Even if its not the right one, or the one that ends up correcting the issue, you always want to give the person a way to fix the problem.  That's exactly what I feel should be done with the welfare discussion.  Here's my solution.  

The solution to our welfare problem begins with access to education.  Education in our country is a joke at all levels.  Particularly the educational system in poverty stricken areas.  It needs a complete overhaul.  I'm pretty sure that is a concept on which we all agree.  Our children should all have equal access to quality education at no additional cost.  Conservatives may want to sit down for this...it's going to cost a lot of money!  That money will have to come from somewhere.  Increased taxes.  Decreased spending in areas like defense.  I'm not really going to tackle the funding issue, but this will cost.  

Of course, even access to great education won't solve the poverty problem.  There will always be a need for assistance.  It's how we give people that assistance that is important.  Here are some aspects of our system that must be in place for this to work:

• Assistance must provide for the needs of the individuals, including the nutritional needs, without the ability to transfer the assistance to another party or use it for unnecessary items (things like take out pizza - I'm looking at you Papa Murphy's).  
• Contraception must be available at no cost to individuals on welfare.  
• People should be approved for an amount of assistance and it should remain at that level, regardless of whether or not they have any children after they are approved (women who are pregnant should be approved including the anticipated child).  
• Drug tests should be mandatory and each recipient should be tested every time they pick up their assistance.
• Vocational training or higher education (not beyond a bachelor's degree) should be mandatory and provided at no cost.  Missed training (excluding illness) should constitute reduced or denial of assistance.  (There's that spending again conservatives.  Try to stay calm.)
• Companies that don't pay a living wage and have employees working full time while collecting benefits should be charged a penalty.  We do not subsidize the workforce of private companies...I'm looking at you Wal-mart. 
• None of these reforms should reduce the amount of assistance provided.  If savings are realized from the reforms or additional revenue is brought in (thank you, Wal-mart), the money should be used to stabilize the assistance programs during periods of recession and/or expand coverage. 

Now I'm sure that there are plenty more specific changes that I would make if I knew the welfare program well enough.  The point is that I'm not going to sit here and complain about the government taking my money and helping people who need assistance.  I would much rather have my taxes pay for assistance to the impoverished than wars around the world in which we have no business being involved.  I would much rather have some people taking advantage of the welfare system than have rich defense contractors getting even richer lining the pockets of decision-makers to get million and billion dollar contracts.  We spend as much on our defense as the next 13 countries below us on the list of top spenders combined...with room to spare!  I'm pretty sure we can lower the budgets for defense and reallocate a large portion of that money to making sure that we can feed and shelter our people. 

The point is that we are all sick of hearing about it.  Conservatives are in the minority when it comes to what they try to condemn as "entitlement" programs.  The reason our country is seeing a fundamental shift in the way that people are voting is because we don't want to see the rich getting richer while complaining about assistance programs.  And don't tell me how generous conservatives really are.  Generous people don't complain about the fact that their money is being redistributed to the poor.  We want to help the people of the United States.  We see no reason that anyone should go hungry or homeless in the richest, most powerful nation in the world.  Do something about it or deal with it.  Just stop complaining.

Mourdock's Comments Costing Republicans Senate Seat

For those of you who read my column in The American Complaint Department, this week's was about the ridiculous comment made by Senate candidate Richard Mourdock (read the article here).  In his final debate with Joe Donnelly and Andrew Horning, Mourdock was asked about his position on abortion in the case of rape.  If you haven't heard, Mourdock said that, if a woman got pregnant from rape, it was "something God intended to happen."  

Of course I think his statement is ridiculous, but great news has come out about Mourdock's Senate campaign.  The results of the first independent poll that has been released since his statement came out today.  The poll shows that Mourdock is now trailing Joe Donnelly by an 11 point margin.  If this poll is even close to accurate, Mourdock has likely ruined his chances of winning this race with his extremist comments.  He would have to pull off a miracle come back in the final four days of the election.  I doubt that is likely because Indiana television stations are being flooded with commercials condemning Mourdock's tea party extremism.  In the short time it took me to write this blog, I have seen about 6 or 7 commercials using Mourdock's comments against him. 

Most importantly is what this means for the election in general.  Republicans have been working very hard to gain a majority in the Senate.  This was going to be an uphill battle, but Indiana Republicans made it even harder when they replaced 35 year incumbent Richard Lugar with a tea party extremist candidate.  Lugar was a well-known moderate Republican that has worked well with Democrats for decades.  The desire to rid themselves of anyone who has worked across the aisle has now likely lost Republicans a seat that has been a mainstay for over three decades.  I hope Republicans take this into consideration as proof that the majority will reject the tea party extremist element that has been infecting their ranks.  It lost them an ally in the Senate, and will continue to destroy the Republican party from within.  Of course, that's not an entirely bad notion.

Jesus was a Socialist

Conservative Christians.  That's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.  I know that conservatives like to think of themselves as the "Christian right," but they couldn't be further from the truth.  Aside from the fact that they like to focus on the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible (while conveniently ignoring all of the accompanying verse), they seem to have no understanding of the instructions that Jesus left for Christians.  With that in mind, I thought I would point out a few of the verses that they have forgotten in their attempts to blend their religion into their politics. 

Let's start with the condemnation of taxes.  Many conservatives think that taxes are terrible.  What they fail to remember is that the Bible respects the collection of taxes:

Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (Romans 13:7)

Jesus also instructs people to pay the taxes that the government has declared they owe:

¹⁵ Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. ¹⁶ They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. ¹⁷ Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”
¹⁸ But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? ¹⁹ Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, ²⁰ and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
²¹ “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:15-21)

All of the screaming that conservatives do about taxes being too high seems to go against the instructions that are laid out in the Bible.  Of course, their next argument is that they will pay the taxes, but the taxes shouldn't be so high.  They call the President socialist and talk about how he is "evil" and even the "anti-Christ."  Again, there are some verses that they seem to have forgotten about the people chosen to lead our country:

¹⁷ “The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people." (Daniel 4:17)

In the Lord’s hand the king’s heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him.  (Proverbs 21:1)

⁶ This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. (Romans 13:6)

¹³ Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, ¹⁴ or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. ¹⁵ For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.  (1 Peter 2:13-15)

Obviously the Bible is telling us that we need to respect our political leaders.  If this is true then I say that the disrespect that conservatives have been showing President Obama during his term and the election is contrary to the commands given to Christians in the Bible.

Now the part that you have all been waiting for...the constant complaints that President Obama is a socialist.  While I don't believe that, there is another famous leader who could be considered a socialist.  In fact, I believe with all of my heart that, if he had lived today, his words would be condemned by the very conservatives who claim to live by his teachings.  Yes...Jesus would be considered a socialist.

And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”  (Luke 3:10-11)

³⁴ Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶ I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ ³⁷ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ³⁸ And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? ³⁹ And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ ⁴⁰ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ (Matthew 25:34-40)

⁴⁴ And all who believed were together and had all things in common. ⁴⁵ And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. ⁴⁶ And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,  (Acts: 2:44-46)

³² Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. ³³ And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. ³⁴ There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold ³⁵ and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

When conservatives condemn "redistribution of wealth," they are actually condemning the teachings of the one man whom they pretend to revere among all men.  The one they say they are supporting when they throw the first stone at homosexuals and people of different faiths and backgrounds.  They forget that the teachings of Jesus were radical and progressive in his time. 

I am a liberal Christian.  There are many of us.  We do what we can to follow the teachings of Christ...all of them.  We don't pick a verse and use it to take away the rights and equality of a group that we fear and hate.  We don't teach our children that it's okay to submit to greed as long as you earned the money.  We believe in what the Bible tells us about loving our neighbors as we love ourselves.  We are here to give our neighbor, whether he is poor, of a different religion, of a different race, or of a different sexual orientation, a hand up in the world.  We are the Christian left and we will not stand for ignorance, hate, and greed being justified by our faith. 

Debunking Conservative Arguments is Fun

I came across this post through a friend.  He is actually one of the people who is honestly looking for the truth about the candidates in this election.  That is why things like this upset me so much.  Using lies and misleading information to win over voters should not be a way to win a campaign.  As I enjoy doing in the many debates in which I find myself engaged, I have debunked much of what this post claims to be true.  I have included the entire post (as it was shared by my friend) with my responses below each section (original post in red, my comments in blue).

AS PROMISED - Something that REALLY struck me the other night, and caused me to really start researching the "facts" that we are being fed by our President, and his campaign.

This train of thought has been percolating in my head for a few days. I started thinking about it after I watched the first Presidential debate, it came more into focus after hearing the remark made by Paul Ryan about how Romney helped a family that had been the victim of a serious car accident, and really started to crystallize after listening to Charles Krauthammer.

The Obama camp has painted Romney as a person that the working class should despise.... Someone who doesn't care about anyone but himself. An "Evil rich person". Someone who will
"Raise taxes on the middle class, and give millionaires a 250k tax break." (That claim has been exposed as pure crap. The economist that the Obama camp used to come up with that has completely contradicted that. It is a LIE, plain and simple.)

Well, the numbers used here are inaccurate.  The truth is that an independent organization, The Tax Policy Center, did an analysis of Romney’s goals in his tax plan.  They admitted that they could not do any exact analysis because, as many of us have been saying for months, the man has not presented a true plan with facts and figures.  However, using his goals and the few numbers that his campaign has supplied, the Tax Policy Center came to the conclusion that it was impossible to remain revenue neutral and meet the goals.  They concluded that, given the information provided by Romney’s campaign, there would be an $86 billion shortfall of revenue.  To make up for this shortfall, taxes on the middle and lower income population must be raised.  So the answer to this is, yes Romney is rich.  Yes, his plan will raise taxes on the middle class.  And yes, his plan will give people making more than $200,000 per year a tax break that will add up to approximately $86 billion per year.  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001631-FAQ-Romney-plan.pdf

They painted him as a corporate raider, as someone who shipped jobs overseas, and even as someone who KILLED SOMEONE'S WIFE. (That disgusting commercial was also proved to be a complete
load of crap.)

Let’s be clear on this.  The commercial was blaming Romney for the loss of a guy’s job and health care benefits which were supposedly the reason his wife’s cancer was not found earlier.  While the problems of GST Steel, the plant that laid off this worker, can be traced back to Romney, the ad went too far.  But please note that this ad was not put out by the Obama campaign.  It was created and run by the Priorities USA Action Super PAC.  Just as there are many conservative Super PAC’s that support Romney and don’t get his approval on their commercials, this organization did the same. 

“If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Remarks,” Denver, CO 8/28/08)

Why has the Obama camp done this?? Because of the quote above. The Obama administration has been in control for almost 4 years, and has managed to do almost nothing.

We’re going to dissect this blatant lie piece by piece.  We’ll start with things that Obama has done during his administration.  Here are some links to hundreds of things that have been accomplished.

http://well-played-sir.blogspot.com/2012/10/argument-against-obama-debunked.html

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

And here is the reason that the Republican congress is responsible for much that hasn’t been done during his term.

http://well-played-sir.blogspot.com/2012/07/real-republican-economic-plan.html

Unemployment is horrible, economic growth is at a standstill, and most people are worse off than they were 4 years ago.

Not true.  Despite the ridiculous claims of conspiracy, the unemployment rate is lower than it was when President Obama took office.  This is even more impressive when you consider the fact that the President shouldn’t be credited with many of the job losses.  See this ling for further explanation. 

http://well-played-sir.blogspot.com/2012/08/election-2012-jobs.html

The Middle East is LESS stable, the Iranians are much closer to having a nuclear weapon, the Russians are pushing us around, and Al Qaeda is still killing our people.

Well...the Middle East has always been unstable.  It’s simply a matter of degree at this point.  Of course Iran is closer to having a nuclear weapon...more time has passed.  Should we just send our troops into every corner of the world and wage war on every sovereign nation that does something we don’t like?  It seems that is the answer for Republicans, but we’re not everyone’s parent.  We can’t police the world.

The magical health plan that was supposed to save families 2,500.00 per year has ended up RAISING health care costs by about 2,500.00 per family. Many employers are getting ready to dump employee health care. And....it was passed before anyone really knew what was in it.
First, the ACA has not cost anyone more.  The insurance companies have raised prices.  Many of the provisions of the ACA have not yet taken effect.  An academic study of the effects of the ACA determined that the results of the changes will be lower health care costs.  The idea of companies dumping health care is a ludicrous scare tactic.  Finally, this is the age of information.  Congressional bills are available online during the entire process.  No one needs to hold this writer’s hand.  He needs to get online and look up the information.  If his representative didn’t do that then he needs to bring it up with the representative...it was available. 

http://www.cms.gov/apps/files/ACA-savings-report-2012.pdf

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/all

The average family has lost lost a median amount of 4,000.00 per year in income. Gas prices have skyrocketed, as have grocery prices. Our national debt is RIDICULOUS.
WE ARE WORSE OFF THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO. FAR WORSE.
Okay...the median income based on reports by Sentier Research is down about $4,000.  However, this is due to the recession.  As the President has a limited amount of control over the economic forces in play, one cannot blame him for this.  Gas prices!  This argument drives me crazy.  I will repeat this one more time for all of the conservatives out there.  THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT CONTROL GAS PRICES!  These prices are controlled by supply, demand, and Wall Street.  The supply is controlled by organizations like OPEC.  The President does not control these organizations.  The only factor that he controls is the federal tax on gas, which hasn’t changed since the late 90’s.  Finally, grocery prices.  There are two factors that have caused the rise in grocery prices.  First is the aforementioned rise in gas prices and recession, neither of which were caused by President Obama.  Another factor is the droughts that we have gone through at the end of last year and throughout this summer.  They have caused a reduction in supply which has led to higher prices.  Unless the President can be blamed for the drought there can be no blame for grocery prices. 

Now, alot of people buy into the "Obama inherited a mess" routine. WRONG. He VOLUNTEERED for this, he did not "inherit" anything. He told us that he could fix this mess, that he would get unemployment UNDER 6% by spending a ton of money (That our kids will have to pay off.), he told us that he could handle the Iranians by negotiating, he told us that he
would lower our health insurance costs. He told us that he would repair the economy.
He has FAILED. Pure and simple.
Yes, he volunteered for the job.  But he took the job as our country was spiraling towards a depression and managed to pull us out of this spiral and into a period of recovery.  And, regardless of the fact that conservatives don’t want to hear that Bush caused this mess, it is true.  And the fact that Romney plans to take our country back to the policies and practices of the Bush administration are terrifying because they will lead to the same disaster that we just experienced.  The President has done what he can to improve all of these areas, but his plans are long-term fixes.  They are not something that can be achieved overnight. 

The Obama camp has also done this because of Obama's hatred for Romney on a personal level. Why does Obama despise Romney? Because Romney embodies everything that Obama seems to sneer at. He is an example of Someone "Who built that". An example of someone who has succeeded without government making things "fair". He has shown that private enterprise does a BETTER job than government. He is everything that Barak Obama has despised, and fought against. Romney represents the American Free Enterprise system. He represents capitalism, and how well it works.
Everything in this paragraph is just ridiculous.

After watching the debate and realizing "Hey, Romney isn't the insensitive tool that the commercials say he is.", I decided to do some of my own research (PLEASE....IF you want to make an informed decision, do your OWN research.) What I found was rather astonishing. It completely contradicts everything that the Obama camp has been spouting. Remember, Romney is supposed to be an uncaring profiteer who will take advantage of people, the guy who will put "rich" people ahead of everyone, who will insure the wealthy profit at the expense of the "common man".....Here are a few things that most people do not know:

- Romney donated over 30 percent of his income (BEFORE taxes) to charity.

Easy to do when you are making millions of dollars each year.  And don’t forget, these donations are tax deductible.
- He refused to TAKE A SALARY as Governor of Massachusetts, and even paid for his own travel expenses. (That's right, he worked for free.)

I would turn down a small six figure salary if I made millions of dollars in other investments and could use it as a political tool too.

- When the Olympics were in trouble, he left Bain Capital, and made them a success. And, he worked for free there, too.

See previous comment.
- As Governor, he got rid of a 1.5 billion dollar deficit, through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and the closure of corporate tax loopholes.(Not quite the corporate stooge he is presented to be, Huh?)

That’s funny...the plans that he has presented show that he will be responsible for adding $86 million to the deficit if he wins the presidency.  That or he has to increase middle class taxes.
- He presided over a state government whose schools are number one in the nation. The best.

I’m sure that this had much more to do with the school systems and staff then anything Romney did, but I’ll give him this one.
- He worked with a legislature that was 87 percent Democrat, and successfully got things done.

Mostly because the legislature was 87 percent Democrat.  The only option he would have would be to veto the bills and that could be overridden by the legislature.  In fact, Romney had approximately 844 budget line-item vetoes and over 700 of them were overridden.  It’s easy to work with the man when you can just ignore his protests. If you want a truly telling measure of his home state, look at the polls.  Obama is expected to win Romney’s home state by almost 20 points!  These are the people that have lived with his governance already. 
- When a Bain Capital employee's daughter went missing in 1996, he shut down the entire office, brought all of the employees to New York.....and made sure that she was located.

Good for him.  There’s something good.
- When his father died, and he inherited his father's money, he donated ALL of it to charity.

He was already super rich.  Who cares?  And again...tax deduction.
- He owner financed a house for a "less than wealthy" family in Texas.

So he has hundreds of millions of dollars and he financed a house for them?  How about just give them a house?  Will.I.Am gave over $350,000 of his own money to help two families that were facing foreclosure pay off their homes.  This makes Romney’s owner financing look pretty insignificant. 
- He paid for the college tuition for children of a family that had been devastated in a car accident.

Another good thing.  But it seems in contrast to his platform on student debt.  Not only does he not plan to increase the grants available to students, his running mate created a budget that sent student loans back to private lending institutions.  This reverts the recent change in student loans originated by the government and would cost the government a fortune in subsidies to the lending institutions.  Just another way to get money into the hands of private organizations at the expense of the rest of the country.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/09/20/romney-ryan-on-student-loans-crony-capitalism/

- He helped subsidize the food for a veteran's homeless shelter for years....and didn't tell them.

Tax deduction.
- When fire destroyed numerous homes in a neighborhood in San Francisco, Romney and his son showed up and helped people clean out their homes...for hours.

Good.  I hope it was better than the work Ryan did at the soup kitchen recently. 
- He helped build a playground (Not writing a check, physically helped build it) to honor a boy who died of Cystic Fibrosis.
Good.  See my last comment.

Have I made my point? He really doesn't look like a rich, greedy corporate raider, now does he?? Cold and unfeeling bastard who is responsible for the death of someone else's wife?
Nope....You've been lied to. Repeatedly.
This paragraph at least has some truth to it.  You have been lied to.  Repeatedly.  By both the writer of this and the Romney campaign. 

Now, let's look at his life as a businessman. Ever heard of companies like: Staples, Sports Authority, Dominoes Pizza, Bright Horizons, Steel Dynamics, Sealy Mattresses, Brookstone?
Romney either funded, rescued, or helped start those companies. OVER 100,000 jobs created.
The jobs outsourced under Romney’s tenure as Bain’s CEO is debatable.  Mostly because the date he actually let go of his role is in question.  He says one thing, but legal filings show something different.  Either way, he created the company and instilled the principles on which the company runs.  This means he is ultimately responsible for the actions of the company, including the outsourcing of jobs that is still going on today. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57472228/what-was-romneys-role-at-bain-during-outsourcing-/

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/18/1041171/employees-protest-bain-romney-as-their-jobs-are-outsourced-to-china/

After doing all of this research, I have to say that I am pretty pissed. Obama has managed to lie to America, and paint a very decent man as a villain.....simply because Obama has accomplished virtually nothing.

My thinking is this.....We have about 3 weeks until we vote. We can vote for a decent man, who does good things; who has accomplished alot both in private industry, and in government .....or vote for someone who has completely lied to us, manipulated us, twisted the truth.....but, above all....has been a FAILURE. Someone who has left us WORSE off, and will continue to do so.

Your choice - Success versus failure, Decent and generous versus dishonest and misleading. Up to you.

Like I said before.  This poster is full of lies and misleading statements.  Starting with the lie that Obama has accomplished nothing.  Do I think Romney is evil?  No.  I think he is a corporate puppet in this election that is meant to take office and improve the lives of corporations and the rich at the expense of the middle class.  I think he will further an agenda of hate with homosexuals and women by writing his religious beliefs into law.  I also think he is an opportunist who will take every advantage available including placing his money in off shore banks to avoid tax liability and hide his returns to keep us from finding out the truth about his unethical, though likely legal, practices.  Speaking of manipulation, this post is very full of exactly that. I find it interesting that I rarely hear liberals call Romney evil, but I routinely hear conservatives talk about President Obama as the anti-Christ and call his supporters cult members and similar derogatory terms.  How could we possibly elect a man to run our country who has only lies and misleading statements to defend his position?  How can anyone attempt to defend policies that have been proven impossible and harmful to our country?  Fortunately, it is up to us, and we can choose to vote for President Obama and forget that Romney ever had a chance. 

Register and Vote!

November 6 is only 30 days away!  After the first debate, we've seen a conservative base that has been charged up and ready to vote.  Liberal and moderate voters should take their queue from the conservatives and make sure that they are ready to vote on election day.  If you support Obama, or even just recognize the fact that Romney can't tell the truth and is a terrible option for the presidency, get yourself registered and get to the polls.  Don't let Romney steal the election on lies and impossible math. 

Some people have already seen their voter registration deadline come and go.  Many people are only days away from the deadline.  Click here to check your state's deadline.  

Not sure if you're registered?  Not sure where to vote?  Click here to check your registration and find your polling location.  Finally, get out there and vote!  No matter what your viewpoint, you have no business complaining about the government if you refuse to exercise your power to make a change. 

Romney's Tax Release Misses the Point

I don't think Mitt really gets it...well, that's the understatement of the century.  Today, the Romney campaign released his 2011 tax returns.  The returns show that he paid a 14.1 percent effective tax rate.  The problem is that he manipulated his taxes, effectively overpaying so that his actual taxes conformed to his earlier claims about how much he paid.  He did this by not claiming some of his charitable contributions.  Before any conservatives try to say that this shows that he is a great guy...don't be fooled.  First, it is obviously a political ploy meant to keep him from looking like a fool for overstating how much he pays in taxes.  Second, he has the ability to claim a deduction on the charitable donations he didn't claim for 2011.  He can claim this deduction after the election, making the current rate meaningless.

But what he really missed is that it's not about the numbers.  It's about the dishonesty.  He released a "summary" of his taxes dating back to 1990.  Why a summary?  Why not just publish the returns?  Because there is something there to hide.  That is the only possible reason he would allow the speculation and accusations to continue.  What he is hiding is obviously still the hot topic of debate.  Is it his tax shelters?  His close ties to Bain investments?  Questionable tax practices?  We don't know because he won't do what every candidate has done since his father released 12 years of returns in 1968.

I think that Romney believes releasing a few numbers to the public will make us all forget that he is still very obviously hiding something.  I also imagine that he'll be very surprised over the next month and a half when he is still on the receiving end of continued attacks about his suspicious, and likely unethical, tax activities. 

Response: SB 1070

I was asked for my opinion on the SB 1070 law.  Great topic…I thought it deserved its own blog entry.  The question was asked:

“SB1070 - what do you think about it/ Do you believe the American people in the sovereign state of Arizona have a right if the police legally stop someone they can request they show citizenship since they are being over ran by illegal aliens that are smuggling drugs, killing locals, stealing, and etc.? What is racist about admitting that Mexicans come from Mexico? If they are legal aliens they should have no problem with being asked. Just like if I am not drunk I don't worry about taking a sobriety test.”

Thank you for asking.

I covered some of this in my Entitlement…Part 3:  Immigration Post.  Here are some excerpts from that post:

If you’ve read my previous posts on entitlement, you know how I feel about people feeling that they have rights that others don’t. This applies, in part, to immigration as well. I hear a lot of people use the fact that an alien is unregistered as an excuse for them having no rights. Let me respond to this with a huge, resounding, “YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.” It would appear that those of you who say this have never actually read the Constitution. Let me enlighten you…section one of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

There is not a lot of ambiguity there. The founding fathers wrote this amendment and used the term “citizen” in it five times. They specifically chose not to use the term citizen in this sentence for a reason. They knew that everyone needed protection of the law in the United States. They did not make any exceptions for immigration status, country of origin, or color of skin.

So what are your other arguments? The economic burden? I won’t argue that point with you because I don’t disagree. I do believe that there is an economic burden with unregistered aliens. It’s the same problem I have with anyone working off the books and not paying taxes. There’s just nothing we can do about it at this time. Of course, that healthcare reform so many of you are complaining about will help when they are all required to carry insurance. This will ease the burden on our healthcare system and reduce the cost of healthcare for the rest of us. But that’s another blog entirely.

So the other argument is crime. Let’s look at the actual impact of immigration on crime (which is really an impossible statistic to measure.) To do this, we need to look at the overall crime rate. The FBI reports on the cities with the highest crime rate relative to the national rate to create a list of the most dangerous cities. They have only released the preliminary report for 2011 so we will use the data from 2010 and earlier. Based on an analysis Onboard Informatics did of the last seven years of data the most dangerous cities are:

1. St. Louis (34)

2. Atlanta (7)

3. Birmingham Alabama (tie) (31)

3. Orlando (tie) (5)

5. Detroit (16)

6. Memphis (22)

7. Miami (5)

8. Baltimore (19)

9. Kansas City, Missouri (34)

10. Minneapolis (tie) (18)

10. Cleveland (tie) (26)

Look over that list again. See the numbers in parentheses? Those are the rankings for the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the states. Do you see a glaring and obvious problem with the crime argument yet? Only three of the top 11 dangerous cities are even in the top 10 states for illegal immigrant population. Arizona’s not even on the list! I’m not a statistician, but I have done some statistics study in my educational career, but I don’t even need to use my meager skills to say, with confidence, that there is not a relationship with the overall rate of crime and the number of illegal immigrants in a state. Before you ask – these statistics took into consideration incidents of property crime, such burglary and motor vehicle theft, as well as violent crime, like murder and robbery. So pretty much all areas of criminal activity were with the exception of financial crimes, but that would only make Wall Street number one and Washington D.C. number two on the list.

The fact that people are so upset over this issue is just another facet of the entitlement diamond that so many American’s (meaning U.S. citizens) have been wearing lately. We live in a country with the 12th highest per capita GDP in the world. Our poverty level is higher than the per capita GDP of over 120 nations. Do we really expect that people will not want to come to our country to try to form a life for their family? What would you do if you lived in Mexico, only miles from a land where the per capita GDP was three times your country’s? When you had to feed your family or watch them starve, I’m betting you would run across that border…rules be damned. Am I saying that illegal immigration is okay? No. I don’t agree with it…I don’t like it. However, if we want to live in a country as well off as the United States, then we had damn well better get used to it.

That being said, I do think something should be done about it. I’m actually a proponent of building a huge wall at the Mexican border. I think it would help reduce the illegal immigration into the United States, and put a lot of people to work for a while at a time when people are begging for jobs. You like that idea, don’t you? Here’s the rub…it has to be paid for. It is an expensive concept. The money will have to come from somewhere. In our society, somewhere means taxpayers. So if you want the problem solved, you will have to pony up the dough. I also believe that, since the border states are the ones that will be benefiting from the wall, they should be shouldering the vast majority of the cost. Don’t ask for the government to fix a problem for you if you aren’t willing to pay for the fix. But put this proposal in front of the people of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California and see how quickly their sense of entitlement starts them screaming about raised taxes…

Finally, to the Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona’s immigration law. I have three things to say…well done, shame on you, and well done. First, well done on striking down most of the garbage in those laws. Article VI of the Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, places the laws and treaties of the federal government over the state laws. In this case, the federal government has been the established source of laws, policies, and procedures regarding immigration and deportation. A state cannot interfere with the execution of the federal government’s authority in this area. Basically, Arizona can’t just get pissed about how immigration is being handled and decide to take care of it themselves. As the Opinion of the Court describes, it takes a lot of training for a federal immigration agent to be able to determine who is eligible to be detained for deportation proceedings. (Yes, I did read the Opinion of the Court – I don’t rely on political analysts to tell me about these decisions). Some people are detained while some are simply issued a notice to appear. A state cannot override this protocol by making a law that they can detain anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant. This leads to the next problem.

Racial profiling. It is a fact. It can be a problem. Most of us don’t know what that feels like. That’s because the majority of us have never been profiled based on the color of our skin. Unfortunately, many people have. The one part of this law that was not stricken down was the piece that allows officers to verify citizenship for anyone they have a suspicion is here illegally, providing that they have already stopped them for another reason. This law should really read, “Officers can detain any Hispanic so that they can verify their citizenship.” Let’s be honest…officers will look for any reason to stop someone and question them. There is always a reason to stop someone – speeding, a rolling stop, a burned out tail light, jaywalking, suspicious activity, etc. They can now ask people to prove their citizenship. Let’s say that you are a Hispanic person who was born in the U.S. You are a citizen, but you are walking (because you don’t like driving), and you are stopped for jaywalking. While you are issued a warning or a ticket, the officer looks at you and asks you to prove your citizenship. You don’t have your ID because you don’t need it and you don’t have immigration papers because you are a natural born citizen. What happens next? They can’t legally detain you. Fortunately, the Supreme Court issued guidelines along with their ruling that officers can’t detain people for longer than it would reasonably take to handle the original reason for being stopped.

But, why did the officer ask you to prove that you are a citizen? You weren’t committing any action that would lead him to believe that you were in the country illegally. So he just based it on the color of your skin and your appearance. You know, we used to do something similar to people. We looked at them and told them that they didn’t have the same freedoms as the rest of us because they were black. They were harassed and segregated from the rest of us. It took a long long time for us to get over our stupidity concerning civil rights. Oh, wait. We haven’t. We are now just disguising it as immigration policy. The great thing about the ruling is that the Supreme Court specifically said that the only reason they didn’t strike down this part of the legislation was that it had not yet been enforced. They said they couldn’t determine that this is what would happen, but that it would be left open to legal challenges if it did happen. That is a bright, shining star in the future of living without this kind of discrimination and profiling. They left the door open for us to get there; we just have to walk through.

With all of that said, it is very easy to fall into the trap of hate. Our economy is struggling so we want to find someone that is causing the problems. We still have crime so we want someone to be responsible. Who can we blame? It’s no longer okay to blame the Irish, the Italians, or African-Americans. So who is next on the list? How about the fastest growing racial demographic in the country: Hispanics. A number of them are even here illegally so let’s use that as a mask for our anger and fear. Then we can just say that we are being patriotic. We can even make it a political argument because someone hasn’t solved all of the problems that have existed for decades within four years. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d much rather accept people as they are, welcome them to our nation, and increase diversity so that my children can live in a more intelligent, diverse, and prosperous country at my age. Like the man said, “I have a dream…”

To specifically answer the questions you asked:

Question:  Do you believe the American people in the sovereign state of Arizona have a right if the police legally stop someone they can request they show citizenship since they are being over ran by illegal aliens that are smuggling drugs, killing locals, stealing, and etc.?
Answer:  No.  I don’t believe that this is a law that will do much of anything other than encourage racial profiling by police.  The U.S. is not a place that requires me to carry any form of identification at all times.  If an Hispanic natural-born citizen is walking down the street and is stopped for something like jay walking, there should be no requirement for that person to present proof of citizenship.  The color of his skin should not dictate any of his rights in our country. 

Question:  What is racist about admitting that Mexicans come from Mexico?
Answer:  Nothing at all.  The only issue I have at all is that some people are called Mexican that are, in fact, born in the U.S.  Some Hispanics who aren’t born in the U.S. aren’t from Mexico.  I have friends whose have been called Mexican, but whose families are from the Dominican Republic.  It would be equivalent to a proud U.S. citizen being called a Canadian simply because we speak English and are from North America.  So, no, I don’t see any problem with that as long as care is taken for the term to be used correctly, and without intent to discriminate.

Question (after a fashion):  If they are legal aliens they should have no problem with being asked. Just like if I am not drunk I don't worry about taking a sobriety test.
Answer:  I’ll respond to this by going into the second statement.  I have no problem taking a sobriety test if the officer has every reason to suspect that I am drunk.  The problem here lies with the reason to suspect.  A person’s skin color is not a reason to suspect someone is an illegal alien.  I have the same problem with this that I have with sobriety checkpoints.  If the police have no real reason to suspect that I am operating a vehicle under the influence, why am I being asked to provide proof that I am not?  In my opinion, this is contrary to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.  So do I give up my Fourth Amendment rights for some security (on the roads or in Arizona)?  No.  A very wise man, Benjamin Franklin, once said, “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”  When the government takes away the rights of one group of people, they take away the rights of all people.