The Political Junkie

The Hobby Lobby Attack on Reproductive Rights.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:16:00 +0000

CNN: The justices agreed on Tuesday to review provisions in the Affordable Care Act requiring employers of a certain size to offer insurance coverage for birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay. At issue is whether private companies can refuse to do so on the claim it violates their religious beliefs. (link)

Companies cannot get the same protections as religious organizations because they are businesses, not houses of worship. Obviously. When you incorporate your business, you're shielding yourself from certain kinds of liability--and you have responsibilities based on that agreement. You don't get to have it both ways and say my corporation exercises religious liberties.

According to The Center for Disease Control (CDC), 58% of women who take the pill need it for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. Including: migraines, acne, prevention of ovarian cysts, and prevention of menstrual cramps. As well as helping to prevent ovarian and colorectal cancers. Thus, for most women, birth control isn't a religious issue. It's a medical issue.

Allowing companies to have religious rights is like opening Pandora's box. Do you really want to open the door allowing your boss to tell you what medicines you can and can not take? If companies can refuse to cover reproductive health than what's to stop them from refusing other things?

What if your employer doesn't believe women should work? Can they do so on religious grounds? What if your for-profit employer believes that AIDS is God's punishment for being gay? Can they opt out of paying for HIV care? What if your employer doesn't believe in modern medicine at all, like the Christian Scientists & thinks we heal with prayer? Can they refuse employees health care altogether? What if your employer is a Scientologist and believes psychiatric care is evil. Can they refuse to cover mental health care?

Bill Gates is atheistic, can he therefore refuse to hire Christians, or anyone who is religious? Can Microsoft refuse time-off for Christmas due to its religious overtones? And, why doesn't Hobby Lobby also refuse to cover Viagra for men? I'd venture to guess that a lot of guys taking the "little blue pill" aren't using it just for sex within the confines of a marriage. I'm a husband in a childless marriage, so, if I start a company couldn't I refuse to pay for health care covering my employees kids?

This is what I mean. Giving religious rights to companies would have some pretty bad unintended consequences. It could really backfire on the religious fundamentalists.

---End of Transmission---

Government Shutdown Aftermath.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Thu, 17 Oct 2013 23:46:00 +0000

Some of the dust is settling over the GOP manufactured crisis of the government shutdown. If you can recall, the original goal of the "suicide caucus" led by Ted Cruz, was the destruction of the affordable health care act (Obamacare). Obama and the Democrats refused to negotiate over it because it's settled law. The 2012 election was fought, in large part, over "Obamacare" (affordable health care act) and President Obama won re-election handily. When a president is re-elected, that is traditionally seen as a mandate from the people for that president to continue his policies. Therefore, continue implementing the affordable health care act. In addition, though, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the affordable health care act was constitutional and thus, legal. This was by a conservative supreme court! This wasn't a liberal leaning court. Additionally, the Republicans in Congress have tried--and failed, nearly FIFTY TIMES to defund "Obamacare." At some point, when will they respect the will of the voters?

But, Republicans argue that they won an election, too--control of the House of Representatives. True. However, that's only one-half of the legislative branch of government; the U.S. Senate being the other half. The U.S. Senate is controlled by Democrats. Therefore, the two kind of cancel each other out. However, don't forget the presidency. Technically, the U.S. president makes up the executive branch, and not, the legislative branch. However, he does have the legislative power to veto congressional bills. Therefore, technically, the Democrats have over-all control of the U.S. government. The Republicans have the House; and the Democrats have the Senate and the White House. That's 2-to-1. That's why Obama wasn't going to negotiate on defunding the affordable health care act or "Obamacare."

The GOP was holding the U.S. economy hostage unless President Obama defunded his signature achievement, in exchange for simply raising the debt ceiling; which is a perfunctory function of good governance. Raising the debt ceiling isn't creating additional debt, despite it's misleading name. It's simply paying for the debts that we've already accrued. If we would have gone with the Republicans plan to NOT raise the debt ceiling, it would have been like not making payments on a truck that you already bought through a car-loan. That's irresponsible economic policy and bad governance.

To say we wouldn't pay for our debts was terrifying the world because they are the bank. They are the ones from whom we borrowed the money in the first place. In our comparison, they are the bank that gives you the loan to purchase that new truck. A default would have destroyed our good credit rating, which would have sent the economy into another slump, just now that we are barely starting to improve from the Great Recession. I'm not saying Democrats are saints, or that they don't sometimes deserve to be voted-out. I am saying, however, that not all issues have two-sides that are equally to blame. Sometimes, just one side is to blame. This time, it's the Republicans. Other times, the Democrats. Democrats haven't acted perfectly in this government shutdown debate but the polls clearly show that most voters blame the GOP. We can debate issues of debt further but you don't threaten the U.S. economy to get what you want. That's hostage taking and should never be rewarded.

Republicans Dishonest About the Popularity of "Obamacare."

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:53:00 +0000

I'm tired of hearing Republicans say a majority of Americans oppose the Obama health care reforms. It is true that a new CNN/ORC poll found that 57% opposed it while 38% supported it. But, you need to dissect those numbers a bit to get the full and accurate picture.

When you breakdown the reasoning behind opposition to "Obamacare" you come to a different conclusion:

38% favor the health care law, while 39% oppose it believing it's too liberal. BUT...and this is the critical piece of information, 11 % oppose it because the health care law isn't liberal ENOUGH. They feel it doesn't go far enough. So, if you add the support number with those who feel the reforms don't go far enough, you get 49% support on some level and 39% oppose it altogether. That's a ten point advantage for supporting some form of universal health care. There isn't as much opposition as Republicans want you to believe.

---End of Transmission---

IDIOT OF THE WEEK: Conservative Republican Sandy Rios Thinks Gays Make U.S. Military Weaker.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:51:00 +0000

Conservative Republican radio host, Sandy Rios, thinks gays in the military might render the U.S. Navy ineffective against Syria should President Obama command a strike:

When I looked at those battleships going into the Mediterranean, supposedly getting ready for battle in Syria, I couldn’t help think about all the stories I’ve read about how women now are in the ranks of the Navy, getting pregnant at exponential numbers; when I think about the folding in and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the homosexual takeover of so much of our military I’m not sure how effective those naval ships will be. -Sandy Rios

JAMES: She thinks our military will be ineffective against Syria because of gay soldiers? REALLY??? One of the bravest, toughest, best conquerors of human history was bisexual. His name? Alexander the Great. Don't insult us with your lies. Besides, do you really think homosexuals haven't been in the military for generations, anyway????? Do you really think there weren't any gay soldiers during WWII? Soldiers who earned medals for bravery, valor and courage under fire? If so, then you need a doctor, lady, because you're delusional.

---End of Transmission---

Virgin Galactic's Second Rocket Powered Test Flight

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 22:24:00 +0000

Want to know what it's like to fly along the edge of space? Check out this thrilling video of a rocket ship designed by billionaire Richard Branson reach the dizzying height of 69,000 ft!!

The Fukushima Disaster is Far From Over. So, Why Isn't Anyone Talking About It?

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 22:43:00 +0000

Please watch this two-minute video on the full-extent of the clean-up operation needed at Fukushima. Devastating--and why isn't this headline line news every day? Thank goodness for CNN because otherwise you wouldn't know about the ongoing disaster at Fukushima power-plant. It's far from over but you wouldn't know that watching most news on TV. Cable news has tanked the past decade. You have to go online to find the kind of informative, insightful news that use to be on television. Generally, cable TV news has devolved into nothing but flashy, bloated, tabloid outlets.
That doesn't pardon us from not paying attention because it has never been easier to have access to news outlets. The internet makes looking for good news much easier. Yet, I am still amazed at the level of willful ignorance shown by Americans. People can't seem to be bothered with protecting the environment that gives us oxygen to breath and everything vital for life itself. Everyone seems fine with fracking every inch of America and poisoning the air but scream blood-murder when someone tries to legalize marijuana. Our priorities are so fucked-up!! It seems so many would rather pretend nothing is wrong and focus on more important stuff...like Miley Cyrus and football. I'm not saying we always have to dwell on this stuff but ignoring it will only make things worse. I'm so frustrated with all the denial people love to wallow in. Let's just let the world crash and let "God" figure it out. Yeah, that's smart...let's put the health and viability of planet Earth in the hands of a being that has yet to be proven real!!!And don't give me this non-sense that you're too busy with kids and a job for the news. Seriously? You don't have 15 minutes out of the day to browse a credible news site online? Staying in-touch with what's going on in the world isn't that hard. It doesn't require a degree in political science and international policy. There is no excuse. If you aren't apart of the solution, you're apart of the problem. contamination ---End of Transmission---

Dr. Sanjay Gupta Apologizes for Misleading Public About Marijuana.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:14:00 +0000

I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have "no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse."

They didn't have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn't have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works.

JAMES: The American government hasn't just misled the people about marijuana. It has shamelessly lied about the "dangers" of marijuana. We trust our doctors to give us the truth about drugs, and medical care, but if even our doctors are being lied to by our government, how can we respect, and/or trust, the Drug Enforcement Agency, at all?

The American public is waking up to the lies--to quote, "The Who," we won't be fooled again!! Nearly half of all American states have legalized marijuana for medicinal use--and now, two states have legalized it completely. We have reached the tipping-point and we aren't going back now. The DEA and others in law enforcement should work with us to make the transition from prohibition to legalization and regulation rather than fight it kicking-and-screaming the whole-way.

---End of Transmission---

Stay Informed, Vote, or Shut-Up!!

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Thu, 16 May 2013 20:49:00 +0000

God, Christianity, Global Warming, the Environment and Earth.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Thu, 09 May 2013 21:19:00 +0000

The following quotes are from a article written by Eric W. Dolan, for "Raw Story" news -- Wednesday, May 8, 2013 22:57 EDT:

In a nearly 17-minute speech on Wednesday evening, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) blasted an unnamed senator for saying God would protect the Earth from climate change. “I was recently at a Senate hearing where I heard a member of our Senate community say, ‘God won’t allow us to ruin our planet,’” he remarked on the Senate floor. “Maybe that is why we do nothing.” “Where in the Bible are we assured of safety if we do? I see no assurances of that. So why then, when we ignore his plain, natural laws, when we ignore the obvious conclusions to be drawn by our God-given intellect and reason, why then would God, the tidy-up God, drop in and spare us?” he added. “Why would he allow an innocent child to burn its hand when it touches the hot stove but protect us from this lesson? Why would he allow a badly engineered bridge or building to fall, killing innocent people, but protect us from this mistake?”

James: I'm not a Christian, but I use to be. I never understood why some Christians oppose environmentalism--even during the time that I was a Christian!! Why would "God" save ourselves from ruining Earth? Does he save society from terrorists blowing up innocent people? Nope. Does he save us from criminals burning our houses down? Again, no. How about wars that not only destroy the Earth, but countless innocent lives? Not a chance. Therefore, if "God" will punish us severely for doing something like lying, then isn't it logical that he would punish us for destroying his garden? The only home he gave us? This from Revelations in the Bible (Rev. 11:18):

"And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth."

I was always taught as a Christian that "God" let's humans make their own mistakes, and that we must answer for them. If you owned some land, and you let your teen-ager camp on it with his friends and they burned it down, or dumped toxic chemicals on it, would you be happy or angry? Would you prevent that teen-ager from facing the consequences of such poor decision making? Not if you wanted them to learn how to respect people and their property. So, again, why would "God" prevent us from facing the negative consequences of ruining the home he benevolently granted to us? He was furious with Adam and Eve enough to throw them out of his perfect "Garden of Eden" for just eating fruit from his special tree. Imagine how happy he'd be if they (Adam and Eve) dumped toxic chemicals into the rivers and streams of that garden!!

Therefore, we shouldn't treat the Earth like our own sewer system and dump. If even a tattoo defaces the "God's gift" of a human body, then how much bigger of a desecration is ruining "God's" gift of the Earth?!!

In conclusion, ignoring the harm we are doing to the environment while claiming "God" will prevent us from ourselves is pure greed and arrogance wrapped in a delusion.

---End of Transmission---

Pictures and Video of Boston Marathon Bombing Suspects.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:35:00 +0000

From CNN: The FBI on Thursday released photos and video of two men it called suspects in the deadly bombings at the Boston Marathon and pleaded for public help in identifying them. If you have seen, and/or know the men in the following pictures, call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324).

SUSPECT #1:

SUSPECT #2:

VIDEO:

IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING CONTACT: 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or visit, bostonmarathontips.fbi.gov

A Compromise Between the U.S. Federal Government and State's that Legalize Marijuana.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:30:00 +0000

NEW YORK -- Republicans and Democrats in Congress are coming together in defense of states' rights -- and marijuana. Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.) introduced a bipartisan bill on Friday to protect marijuana users and businesses from federal prosecution when they are following state laws.

The Respect State Marijuana Laws Act would shield both medical and recreational pot users. "This bipartisan bill represents a common-sense approach that establishes federal government respect for all states’ marijuana laws. It does so by keeping the federal government out of the business of criminalizing marijuana activities in states that don’t want it to be criminal," said Rohrbacher, in a statement.

TPJ: As a ardent supporter of the right to use recreational cannabis (marijuana), I think this compromise might work. It respects the will of citizens within their states while maintaining federal law. I prefer legalization on the federal level but until that happens, there must be a way to protect both states and federal authority.

I liken this to the prohibition of alcohol. When the ban on booze was over-turned, there remained "dry counties." These were counties that were allowed to maintain a ban on the sale of alcohol. Believe it or not, there are still some "dry counties" in the U.S. If you believe in freedom of body and mind, as I do, then please email your congress member in support of the "Respect State Marijuana Laws Act."

Study Suggests Suicide Linked to Gun Ownership and Conservative Politics.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:54:00 +0000

(Science Daily: Apr. 4, 2013) - Residents of states with the highest rates of gun ownership and political conservatism are at greater risk of suicide than those in states with less gun ownership and less politically conservative leanings, according to a study by University of California, Riverside sociology professor Augustine J. Kposowa.

Kposowa, who has studied suicide and its causes for two decades, analyzed mortality data from the U.S. Multiple Cause of Death Files for 2000 through 2004 and combined individual-level data with state-level information. Firearm ownership, conservatism (measured by percentage voting for former President George W. Bush in the 2000 election), suicide rate, church adherence, and the immigration rate were measured at the state level. He analyzed data relating to 131,636 individual suicides, which were then compared to deaths from natural causes (excluding homicides and accidents).

With few exceptions, states with the highest rates of gun ownership -- for example, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama, and West Virginia -- also tended to have the highest suicide rates. These states were also carried overwhelmingly by George Bush in the 2000 presidential election.

---End of Transmission---

Increasingly Out-of-Touch Republicans Desperately Cling to "Slippery Slope" Arguments.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 21:03:00 +0000

Whether the issue is gay marriage or gun control, Republicans increasingly find themselves on the losing side of public opinion. It's getting harder for traditionalists to defend dogmatic beliefs in an world that is better informed. Therefore, the tendency for conservatives to use the fear-based, "slippery slope" argument. For the rest of the editorial, I'll abbreviate "slippery slope argument" to "SSA."

According to the "Fallacy Files" website, there are two type of SSA:

1). If "A" happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through "B, C,…,X, Y," eventually "Z" will happen, too. "Z" should not happen. Therefore, "A" should not happen, either.

2). "A" differs from "Z" by a continuum of insignificant changes, and there is no non-arbitrary place at which a sharp line between the two can be drawn. Therefore, there is really no difference between "A" and "Z."

For example, a lot of Republicans who still oppose gay marriage rely heavily upon the slippery slope argument. Often they say that we shouldn't legalize same-sex marriage because it could lead to allowing people to marry horses or children. This one really annoys our sense of humanity. It's ludicrous to think that allowing two adults of the same gender to marry will lead to adults marrying animals and children. Obviously, marriage is between two, consenting adults. Children are not adults, nor are they capable of consenting to marriage. No civilized society is going to allow such marriages because it is abusive to one of the parties involved. That is because no civilized society would allow abuse of innocents. No one is being abused by two, consenting adults of the same-sex getting married.

Another debate in America has also been about guns and gun control. The majority of Americans support gun safety reforms. However, a lot of gun-owning conservatives say that we shouldn't pass any reforms because it won't stop all gun deaths from happening. By that logic, we shouldn't have a speeding limit because people willfully break the law by driving too fast. In fact, why have any laws at all?

SSA rely upon ignorance, therefore, knowledge is the best defense. Fear is the last refuge of the ignorant. Thus, the next time a fear-mongering conservative uses a SSA, you'll be ready for them.

Marijuana Legalization Hasn't Destroyed Colorado.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:04:00 +0000

When informed, compassionate citizens of Colorado legalized marijuana for medicinal use, the propagandists and naysayers yelled from the rooftops that doing so would bring about a "drug state." That was 12 years ago, and the naysayers were long-ago proven to be wrong. As a life-long Coloradan, I can assure you that the state is the same state it was before legalizing medicinal marijuana.

Our schools are still drug-free and no one is complaining about the extra tax money created from medicinal marijuana helping to balance our state's budget. There has been no mass "exodus" of churches from the area due to legalization. The police aren't complaining too loudly since it means less crime and less paperwork for them.

The medical marijuana dispensaries are hidden and discrete, far-away from schools or playgrounds. A lot of the clinics are hard to even distinguish as a medical marijuana dispensary. These clinics often have the feel of a doctor's office, and are very clean and professional. The security to enter these places is very restrictive. You have to show not only a valid state driver's license but also your valid medical marijuana license, just to get in the door. The transition has been so minimal and smooth that most Coloradans don't really think about it anymore.

So, when the same naysayers came out in 2012 to oppose the legalization of marijuana for recreational use, they used the same fear-mongering tactics. And, yet again, voters saw through it as "crying wolf." So, it was legalized and once again, the state hasn't turned into a narco-state. Our streets aren't full of drug gangs shooting it out because there's no incentive to sell marijuana in Colorado on the black-market when people can get it legally. Legalizing marijuana means less crime.

If Colorado is a test-case for marijuana legalization then the results are positive for marijuana advocates and those who support a safe and crime-free society.

---End of Transmission---

If You're Not Apart of the Solution, You're Apart of the Problem.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:50:00 +0000

---End of Transmission---

Tar Sands TED Talk: The True Cost of Oil by Garth Lenz

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:27:00 +0000

Cut Military Spending, Not Grandma's Social Security and Medicare.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:37:00 +0000

The Republican Party has long wanted to slash Social Security and Medicare benefits that are literally the difference between homelessness and/or sickness and death for: the elderly, the disabled and the sick. So, now that our economy is still slow, they are seeking to cut those benefits to lower our debt. There are other ways of saving money, but I'll get into that a little further into the post.

I was declared legally disabled by a federal court because of a severe psychiatric disorder called, schizoaffective disorder, which is essentially a chemical imbalance in the brain that creates symptoms of both bipolar and schizophrenia. The unpredictability of the symptoms combined with their severity makes it impossible to consistently hold down a job. Thus, I am on Medicare, so that I can afford the 6 heavy medications needed to give me a basic level of stability. This pills are by no means a cure--I still endure symptoms despite the medications but the medications help somewhat.

I receive social security payments (that I earned when I was able to work) to help pay for the Medicare. If Congress (Republicans) cut my social security then I may not be able to afford my medications, which means my condition worsens and I risk suicide or hospitalization. I couldn't afford hospitalization, so that would be payed by the tax-payers, which is a lot more expensive than simply continuing Medicare paying for the medications I take to keep me out of the hospital. If Medicare was slashed then there would be increased hospitalizations of the psychologically disabled, and long-term care in a government hospital is much costlier than supporting subsided medical care for the most vulnerable (people on medicare and medicaid).

The US spends more on its military than any other country, by far. We could reduce our military spending immensely and still have the biggest, most powerful military in the world. The Pentagon, even, has called for cuts to their spending but Republicans refuse to take them up on the offer. So, why continue paying for military weapons that we don't need? Well, a lot of Republicans want to shield the corporations that make money off weapons of war, and war itself. Why? Because those corporations fill the pockets of a lot of Republican politicians. In the end, it's about priorities--ending the Afghanistan war alone would help a lot. Then we don’t have to cut grandma’s social security and Medicare.

You have to question the morals of a society that would rather spend its money on weapons of war than healing the sick and caring for the disabled and elderly. I would ask Christian Republicans, "What would Jesus do?" Do you think he'd rather help the most vulnerable members of society or spend that money on weapons of war that our military doesn't even need?

I believe we can save money in Social Security and Medicare by further means-testing. In other words, people who make millions of dollars don't need these benefits. These programs should be limited to the most vulnerable, which would reduce the burden on the system. There are several ways to solve a problem.

---End of Transmission---

Gerrymandering Is to Blame for Dysfunctional Congress.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:41:00 +0000

One of the biggest threats to American democracy is gerrymandered districts. They isolate districts to areas that favor one party over another. Therefore, they don't truly represent the diversity of America. This is why we see so much political extremism in Congress today. Since they are gerrymandered districts, they become "safe seats" that essentially eliminate competition (from the other party) for the congress-members representing those districts. The way to end grid-lock in Congress is to reform congressional representation allocation. I realize it's not as "fun" or "exciting" as sports, or t.v., but it truly is the foundation to why we have a dysfunctional Congress.

---End of Transmission---

Romney and Republicans Still Insulting Latinos and African-Americans.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:35:00 +0000

If you lost the presidency of the most powerful country in the world, wouldn't you do some self-examination to understand how and why you lost? Well, apparently not Mitt Romney. No, Romney's ego won't allow for taking on any personal blame, so what to do? Never fear, white-America!! Just blame the brown people!! Yes, according to Mitt Romney President Obama won because he promised the brown people free stuff. On a call with donors, Romney had this to say:

"What the president did is he gave them [Latinos/Hispanics] two things. One, he gave them a big gift on immigration with the DREAM Act amnesty program, which was obviously very very popular with Hispanic voters, and then number two was Obamacare. For any lower-income Hispanic family, Obamacare was massive [...] For a home earning let's say thirty thousand a year, free health care, which is worth about ten thousand dollars a year, I mean is massive, it's huge. So this--he did two very popular things for the Hispanic community." With regards to African-American voters, 'Obamacare' was a huge plus -- and was highly motivational to African-American voters. You can imagine for somebody making $25-, or $30-, or $35,000 a year, being told 'You're now going to get free health care' -- particularly if you don't have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 a family, in perpetuity -- I mean this is huge. Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus."

TPJ: Why does he single out Hispanic families? Millions of white families voted for Obama, too. Besides, there are plenty of lower-income white families who benefit from "Obamacare." In my opinion, he singles them out because he has to blame his defeat on someone, so why not do what rich, white-men have been doing for centuries, blame it on the "coloreds."

As Alex Wagner opined today on MSNBC, "Romney subtext: who likes hand-outs better than African-Americans and Hispanics? Never mind that according to the Department of Health and Human Services, Hispanics make up 32.5% of the uninsured. African-Americans make up 15.9%, and white people 44.6%.

You'd think these Republicans would stop shooting themselves in the foot with diverse, modern, America. I guess some are still in denial that the American voting population no longer looks or acts like "1950s America." But, as a liberal, it makes me smile to see the Republicans spin-off into political irrelevancy. If they're going to shoot themselves in the foot then I would happily provide them with the metaphorical bullets.

---End of Transmission---

Republicans Hypocritical on FEMA, Federal Aid and Relief.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:29:00 +0000

GOP Politicians Said This About FEMA

Romney Jeep Ad in Ohio a Desperate Lie.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:17:00 +0000

Mitt Romnocchio is back down in the mud lying like a four year-old claiming the auto loans extended by President Obama went to hire workers in China, not the U.S. (link):

We've clearly entered some parallel universe during these last few days,” GM spokesman Greg Martin said. “No amount of campaign politics at its cynical worst will diminish our record of creating jobs in the U.S. and repatriating profits back to this country.

Separately, Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne refuted the Romney TV ad that Chrysler may move all Jeep production from the U.S. to China (link):

“Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China,” Marchionne stated in the e-mail. “The numbers tell the story,” followed by specific investments Chrysler has made at its plants in Detroit, Toledo and Belvidere, Ill. “Those include more than $1.7 billion to produce the successor of the Jeep Liberty and hire about 1,100 workers on a second shift by 2013.”

These two businessmen, Martin and Marchionne, aren't liberal activists trying to smear Romney. They are titans of industry who are rightfully disgusted by Romney pathetically trying to mislead American workers in Michigan and Ohio.

Romney's lies do even greater harm by smearing the reputation of GM and Chrysler, which has just gotten back on its feet. If Romney would mislead Americans so easily about a vital, American, industry then what else would he lie about? Apparently he cares less about workers and more about winning political points at the cost of American jobs. Lying about jobs and trade practices to hard-working, blue collar, middle class, Americans is pathetic for a man who keeps his money in foreign banks and invests heavily in dubious, Chinese companies.

Those companies include one discovered to have sold pirated movies and t.v. shows, and another one was busted for selling bootleg college exams to American students (link). You have to wonder why Romney invests in China while telling the auto companies to go bankrupt. Standing up for American workers? I think not. That would be President Obama. Besides rescuing the domestic auto industry, President Obama has brought more major trade actions against China than any other president. According to the Center for American Progress. That includes standing up to China to protect American tire manufacturers who rely heavily upon the American auto industry (link). It seems clear that Mitt Romney cares about more about politics than supporting the American worker.

---End of Transmission---

Romney Misleads on Importance of FEMA and Federal Disaster Relief.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:23:00 +0000

After a Republican primary debate this past Spring, Romney told Americans that he'd end federal disaster programs such as FEMA and make states shoulder the burden themselves. "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better" (link).

Then Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast, and Romney realized that he was once again that he was on the wrong side of yet another issue. So, he's trying to mislead Americans, yet again, by saying he does support FEMA and federal relief funds. As Sabrina Siddiqui reports for "The Huffington Post," the Romney campaign is saying:

Governor Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions,” said campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg. “As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.

Notice how the position opposing federal help remains except for a sentence hastily added at the end saying "This includes help from the federal government and FEMA." I'm so disgusted with all these "fiscal conservatives" saying government is horrible, incapable and a waste of tax dollars--until they need government help. Then they try to backtrack like Willy Coyote after realizing he ran off the cliff!! Romney must think Americans are all too stupid to notice him changing positions faster than a prostitute in Amsterdam!!

Romney's FEMA failure during Hurricane Sandy gives us a glimpse into how he would handle disasters as President of the United States. It doesn't look good. His short-sighted views on cutting emergency relief programs expose his weaknesses as a politician. He might be able to lead a board-room full of executives but he's clueless as a national leader.

---End of Transmission---

As Hurricane Sandy Pounds East Coast, Romney Plans to Cut Federal Disaster Funds from FEMA. Calls Funding FEMA "Immoral."

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:58:00 +0000

During a presidential primary debate earlier this year, Mitt Romney forcefully called for the end of FEMA. That is the national emergency management department of the U.S. government. Romney stated that such activities should be left to the states to manage. He went even further to say the best option would be to privatize disaster relief:

"Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?" "Including disaster relief, though?" debate moderator John King asked Romney."We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids," Romney replied. "It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all.

It's reckless for Mitt Romney to call for cutting disaster relief funds at the national level. Especially while calling for a reduction in taxes paid by the ultra-rich. His idea is make the rich even richer at the detriment to disaster relief programs. He simply has no idea how massive and expensive these storms can be. No one state alone has enough money to repair a major disaster, such as after Hurricane Katrina. It would bankrupt some states if they were forced to pay for the entire clean-up and rescue efforts. It's disgusting that Romney would rather states go bankrupt and families move than make his rich buddies pay a little extra in taxes to stand with our neighbors to provide disaster assistance. Whatever happened to "United we stand?" Romney would change that phrase to "You're on your own."

Privatizing disaster relief programs is just as dangerous. It makes victims of devastating storms pay higher and higher prices for assistance, especially if they live in a state prone to natural disasters. And what do citizens do who cannot afford to pay for a private company to help them? Are we just going to let them drown or wander around homeless? That is an unfair economic burden to place upon people whose house was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Romney then talks about morality. What would Jesus think? Would he rather we focus on people, or money? Helping our brothers and sisters or ignoring them?

There is a pattern here with Mitt Romney. First we heard him callously telling the auto industry to go bankrupt, which would have made an improving economy in Ohio and Michigan slide back into a recession. Now he's turning his back on millions of voters who live in disaster prone areas of the country: Florida, Virginia, the earthquake zones on the west coast and any state with a high, wildfire risk, (Colorado and other western state). If you believe that we should help our fellow Americans regardless of their state, you need to vote for President Obama. In a Romney world, we're all on our own, which is great for the uber-rich but devastating for the rest of us. Stand with your fellow Americans and vote for President Obama.

---End of Transmission---

U.S. Economy Expanding and Improving at a Quicker Pace.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:43:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy expanded at a slightly faster 2 percent annual rate from July through September, buoyed by an uptick in consumer spending and a burst of government spending.

It's getting harder for Mitt Romney to claim that the economy is getting worse. It is clearly getting better and better each month. Unemployment is down below the psychologically important level of 8%, the housing market is improving and the DOW is around 13,000 which is more than double the level it was at when Obama took office. Manufacturing is coming back in the Midwest from the auto loans extended by the Obama administration, so it's a lie that Obama has made things worse.

---End of Transmission---

So, You Don't Think Your Vote Matters? Think Again.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:42:00 +0000

---End of Transmission---