theblogmeister

It is Time to Change

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:02:00 +0000

I have absolutely fell in love with a program that not only raises your credit score but also shows you readers step, by step how to remove statements that are not even true. I have been writing about politics and I may throw one story in here, and there, it is recommended that you do not access the Annual Credit Report Request Service through links from unfamiliar websites because of the potential for proxy activity. A proxy site is one that mimics a popular website to lure consumers into disclosing confidential information. These sites can mirror the URL that appears in the address. We recommend that you access the Annual Credit Report Request Service directly at https://www.annualcreditreport.com. The best way to arrive at any website is to type its address (URL) into your browser and then bookmark it.

Criminals may send email that looks like it has been sent from Annual Credit Report. These phony emails ask a user to link to a website that also looks like https://www.annualcreditreport.com and provide your personal account information. This is the most common type of online fraud, and is called "phishing" or "spoofing." Criminals send these phony email messages or direct someone to a fraudulent website for one goal: to steal personal and financial information. Annual Credit Report will never send you an email directly. If you ever receive an email that appears suspicious and appears to be from or regarding the Annual Credit Report Request Service, do not reply to it or click on the link it provides. Please contact us immediately by using the Consumer Comment Form.
My passion is allowing America to rebuild. The only way to do that? Get your credit score where it needs to be. It is not hard. We have programs that will guide you and when you do get that high number everybody dreams about. Don't forget to tell them how you did it. Together, we can have America on her feet, again. I want to take this time to welcome home our soldiers and as soon as we get the men out of Afghanistan, you bet , we will have a ticker tape parade through the canyon of Champions. Cause that is what you all are; CHAMPIONS. theblogmeister

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates Don't Have a Clue. Yeah, Right!

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:56:00 +0000

Aiming tax increases at millionaires and companies that ship jobs abroad may help frame the fairness theme of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign, but it's a plan that stands virtually no chance of passing Congress. Republicans have enough votes in the GOP-run House, and almost certainly in the Democratic-controlled Senate, to kill Obama's proposals. They say his ideas would discourage investment and job creation and further hurt an already ailing economy.
"He's got to know that none of those things he proposed really have much of a chance of going through both houses of Congress," said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. "I don't think he's intending on passing any laws this year," said House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "He's in a campaign. That was his re-election speech." The GOP's dismissiveness hardly matters to Obama and his Democratic allies.
After last year's hyper-partisanship bogged down routine business like financing the government and paying its debts, few expect much to move through Congress before November's election anyway — especially not tax hikes that Republicans solidly reject. "Even if there is little prospect of getting Republicans to agree with these proposals, they're important reference points for the public in identifying Obama as someone who's on their side," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin. Obama offered his plans, with scant detail, in Tuesday's State of the Union address. He used the word "fair" seven times to describe tax increases aimed at groups the Occupy movement has branded as the "one percent" of Americans who are doing extremely well while the rest of society struggles. The president proposed ending tax breaks for U.S. companies moving jobs or profits to foreign countries and creating a minimum tax on their overseas profits. He also suggested new tax breaks for businesses that move jobs back to the U.S., for domestic manufacturing and for companies that invest in towns that have suffered major job losses. Getting most attention was his plan to tax incomes above $1 million annually at a rate of at least 30 percent. That's a sharp and convenient contrast with the 15 percent tax rate enjoyed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination, who earned about $21 million each of the past two years. The proposals quickly became fodder for the GOP presidential contenders. Romney said the next day on CNBC's "Kudlow Report" that Obama's plan was "designed to come at me if I'm the nominee," and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said during last Thursday's presidential debate, "His proposal on taxes would make the economy worse." Democrats immediately made clear that there will be Senate votes this year on the subject. New York Sen. Charles Schumer, part of the Senate Democratic leadership, said he was relishing a push on "some kind of Romney rule, I mean Buffett rule." Obama has embraced a Buffett rule, named for billionaire Warren Buffett, who has cited the inequity of laws that let him pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. Such proposals, along with any efforts to deny tax breaks to U.S. companies that outsource jobs and profits, would never get the 60 votes they would need to prevail in the Senate this year, let alone win approval from the GOP-run House. If the president has proposals that will help create jobs, we'll take a look," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "But tax hikes on small businesses will make it even harder for them to invest and grow." Republicans say boosting taxes on millionaires would hurt many of the people who run small businesses and create jobs, a claim Democrats call exaggerated. The GOP and business groups also marshal their own fairness argument, calling it unjust and impractical to raise taxes on companies that set up operations overseas.
"They locate their facilities to be close to the customer," said Dorothy Coleman, vice president for tax policy for the National Association of Manufacturers. "That's a big concern for us, targeting multinational companies as if there is something wrong with doing business overseas." Democrats challenge that argument as well, saying many pharmaceutical and high technology companies that set up shop abroad are drawn by lower labor costs and taxes and still sell the bulk of their products in the U.S. Those disputes underscore a political climate so difficult that neither the House nor Senate seem likely to even try advancing pre-election legislation that each party calls their top tax priority: overhauling and simplifying the tax code. Even so, Obama's tax proposals can also be read as an opening gambit in what looms as a titanic partisan struggle to be waged after the November elections, perhaps in a lame duck session of Congress in December. Next January, broad tax cuts will expire that were enacted under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 and were temporarily renewed by Obama and Congress in 2010. At the same time, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts will kick in unless lawmakers vote otherwise.
Congress will also need to renew the government's authority to borrow money. And action will be needed on a package of expiring smaller tax cuts, mostly for businesses, and on preventing the alternative minimum tax, originally aimed at the wealthy, from trapping middle- and upper-middle-income families as well

What Does the Future Hold for Veterans?

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:58:00 +0000

Many veteran service representatives are committed to supporting and preserving our status as the best military in the world. As the President prepares his final budget for Congress, they will continue to monitor the impact these budget decisions will have on service members’ and veterans’ long-term health and financial stability. In the coming weeks, there is hope the White House and Department of Defense will reach out to members and their families for feedback and insight. Our troops are taught never to leave anyone behind. That ethos is true in combat and America needs to uphold it here at home.”
The Department of Defense announced today that it will request $525 billion in funding for the Fiscal Year 2013. However, DoD is required to reduce $487 billion in planned spending over the next 10 years. To achieve this objective, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta addressed several defense priorities that could impact the sefvice rep community including: Force reduction-- DoD plans to reduce the size of the active Army from a post-9/11 peace of about 570,000 in 2010 to 490,000. The Army plans to remove at least eight Brigade Combat Teams from its existing structure. DoD will reduce the active Marine Corps from a peak of roughly 202,000 to 182,000. In addition, the President will request that Congress authorize use of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process to further reduce costs.
Military Pay-- Instead of reducing military pay, DoD will allow full pay raises in 2013 and 2014 to keep pace with increases in private sector pay. DoD will limit pay raises beginning in 2015 to achieve cost savings.
Wounded Warriors, Families and Transitioning Vets-- The DoD budget plan recommends sustaining key support programs while reforming and reorganizing others to respond to the needs of troops of their families including:
Wounded Warriors – Provide extra funding for the base and OCO budgets to enhance the Integrated Disability Evaluation System.
Transition Assistance - Reform the Transition Assistance Program and transition process for all service members through a collaborative DoD-VA initiative that improves career opportunities and readiness focusing on education, technical training, job placement and entrepreneurship preparation.
Family Support - Sustain, expand or improve effective programs for non-clinical counselors, marriage support, new patient support, and stress-reducing recreation for returning troops.
Psychological Health - Sustain effective programs that address Traumatic Brain Injury and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Reserve Component Support - DoD’s Yellow Ribbon Integration Program, which provides services and referrals to reservists guardsmen, their families, and their employers through each state of the mobilization cycle.
DoD Schools - facilities being restored and modernized.
Health Care-- DoD indicates changes in the budget will not affect active duty personnel or their families. Medically retired and survivors of those who died on active duty are exempt from health care changes. Working-age retirees under the age of 65 who are still likely to be employed in the civilian sector will feel the most impact. Proposed changes include: Increasing and adding new enrollment fees for retirees under age 65 in the TRICARE program, using a tiered approach based on retired pay that requires senior-grade retirees to pay more and junior-grade retirees less. Establishing a new enrollment fee for the TRICARE-for-Life program for retirees 65 and older using a tiered approach.
Increasing pharmacy co-pays to incentivize use of generics and mail order.
Retirement-- DoD will ask Congress to establish a commission with BRAC-like authority to conduct a comprehensive review of military retirement in the context of total military compensation. To protect the retirement benefits of those who currently serve, the commission would assess grandfathering benefits, so reforms only impact future recruits. Contact Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America for additional details. theblogmeister

So Much Noise

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:46:00 +0000

Every time I turn on my computer I see the verbal battles between Republicans that are trying to win their party's nomination to take on Barrack Obama come November. What is so unbelievable to me is how the GOP is attacking each other. I have never seen it this bad. Then again, I have never seen anyone like the four that are left to do battle. It seems the normal actions are to dig up trash, call each other a liar, and generally behave like they do not have a clue what it is doing to their party. Do you wonder why there are not that many in Congress that openly say what nominee they are behind? There mind is on trying their damndest to make The President look bad. They will go to any lengths to do so. What is especially confusing to me is when the Republicans vote against ideas that they at one time were all for. As soon as the President says he will agree to their plans it becomes automatic; vote no! The people are not stupid. There was a time that I agreed with some GOP ideas until I researched what exactly is going on in Washington. The GOP is so screwed up that they will lose the majority in the House. Speaker Boehner will lose his seat next to Joe Biden because the public is not stupid. When you have two of the richest men in America say that they need to pay their fair share of taxes and the vote comes up to tax the wealthiest 2% the Republicans vote no. Do they not realize what their doing is political suicide? Romney has his money in off-shore accounts and if he wins the nomination Barrack Obama will eat him alive in a debate. It will not be pretty, at all. The one thing Obama has is a gift of gab. He is a smooth talker and Romney's fighting with Newt and Santorum, Paul when they let him, is child's play compared to what Obama will do to either of them. Newt was leading the charge to impeach Clinton for getting a little oral sex at the same time he was banging the perfect haired aide who is now his wife. Newt got pissed because John King opened the debate with a question regarding his character and exploded. It was a fair question John King just sat their and let him rant. I bet if it had been Wolf, Newt would have been made to look like a dirty old man. The money that is being poured into Florida is why Santorum will not do good. Paul is not even in Florida, he knows that he does not have the cabbage to compete with those Super PAC's. So, he is up in Maine spreading his message about no government, not less government. Paul as President would be a dangerous event. I hope the young people of this great country will not let his ideas of Constitutionism blind them to the fact that he is dangerous. I will be glad after Florida votes and Romney gets all the delegates so we can start having debates with someone that is a master at debating and the constitution; Barrack Obama. theblogmeister

The Party of No!

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:49:00 +0000

This is the reason Congress is always in gridlock and cannot get anything done.
Republicans would have Americans believe there is a socialistic war in American politics as if the social programs of public schools, police and fire departments, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and programs for the less fortunate are anti-American and anti-Christian. On the other hand Republicans and their fellow teabaggers lack the principles or any constructive ideas to move America forward. Their political arrogance of ‘NO’ is couched as “We’re doing this for you” and is the bastion of hypocrisy as the Republican Party was the genesis for the economic collapse in the U.S .Cases in Point: President Obama proposed a bipartisan fiscal commission, a panel of Democrats and Republicans who would hammer out concrete deficit reduction proposals over the medium and long-term, an idea that had strong bipartisan support and was initially co-sponsored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-ND, and Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, the committee’s top-ranking Republican and had a lot of Republican cosponsors. After the President endorsed this idea, all of a sudden, Republicans started to think of it as a bad idea. Six Republican senators who originally cosponsored forming a deficit commission voted against it once President Obama signed up for the idea. Sam Brownback, Mike Crapo, John Ensign, Kay Bailey Hutchison, James Inhofe, and John McCain, profiles in courage against their own policies.
President Obama introduced PAYGO (pay-as-you-go), a simple rule that says Congress cannot spend a dime without cutting a dime elsewhere. PAYGO was a big reason why America had balanced budgets and record surpluses in the 1990’s in which President Bill Clinton left to the Republican Controlled Congress and White House. Republican Senators John McCain, George Voinovich, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe all endorsed PAYGO in recent years. But then, President Obama endorsed it. Despite supporting PAYGO before John McCain, George Voinovich, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe all voted against it when it came up for a vote last week. McCain, Three Other GOPers, Reverse Support For Pay-Go
President Obama supports Cap and Trade in an effort to fight global warming and Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, once sponsors and major supporters of cap-and-trade climate legislation, now say they oppose it. McCain Pushes ‘Cap-And-Trade’ Plan to Fight Global Warming.
On national security, Republicans had no problem with the Bush/Cheney Administration trying terrorism suspects in federal courts. Now that President Obama is doing that same thing, they‘ve decided they‘re against that too. Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), “We now know that was a mistake, we didn‘t say it was at the time, or even think it was at the time when President Bush did it, but now that President Obama‘s doing it—even on taxes, Republicans are now opposed to the one thing we fought for sure they were definitely for.”
President Obama during his State of the Union Address “We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time home buyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.” Republicans are no longer in favor of tax cuts especially if they are not for the rich. While President Obama is supporting typical Republican policies, Republicans are voting NO against their own ideas. Republicans are voting NO, against their own ideas, just to stick it to President Obama. Americans be damned! GOP ducking budget blame, Republicans left time bomb that Obama must defuse.
President Obama’s plan to enact Health Care Legislation to protect Americans and stop greed and Health Insurance from denying coverage and reported by the CBO: Senate Health Bill Would Reduce Deficit $130 Billion over a Decade. Republicans deliberately ignore the 45,000 who die from lack of health insurance each year, had no plan of their own and went on a lying rampage to scare Americans with terms like ‘death panels’ and ‘government take over’. President Obama is initiating financial reform to protect Americans from greedy Wall Street and financial polices which lead America into the greatest financial recession since the 1930s. President Obama want to add a “Fee on big banks to pay back taxpayers for unpaid bailout money, if banks can afford huge multi-million dollar bonuses then they can afford to pay back taxpayers who bailed them out in their time of need.” Republicans are against any type of Wall Street reform or regulations. Republican Strategist, Frank Luntz Pens Memo To Kill Financial Regulatory Reformreported by the Wall Street Journal) notes, “The single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the big bank bailout.” Thus, Republicans should rename Wall Street reform the big bank bailout bill (which Republicans enacted). Should Wall Street pay back taxpayers for the bailout? Democrats say Yes, Republicans side with Wall Street against paying back the bailout money, saying NO. In fact on Feb 4, 2010, Republican Minority Leader John Boehner made the case with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, that Republicans better represent the industry’s interests.
President Obama just put forth his 2011 budget wrestling with priorities in a country facing double digit unemployment and record deficits while waging two wars. The president seeks a small jobs program in the short term, while committing to deficit reduction beginning next year. He would raise top end taxes, crack down on multinational tax havens, force equity fund managers to pay income taxes like the rest of us, while putting a freeze on domestic discretionary spending for three years, embracing “pay-go” budget discipline on any increase in entitlements or cuts in taxes, and pushing for health care reform which addresses the source of long term deficits and out of control health care costs. This budget will help stabilize in the range of 3.9 percent of GDP.
While the Administration acknowledges the budget’s red ink, a New York Times editorial noted that “it is not too much at a time of economic weakness, when deficit spending is needed to boost growth. Congress also cannot waste any more time posturing about the deficit rather than doing what is needed to get Americans back to work.” Republicans are already saying NO. Robert L. Borosage recently wrote The GOP: Grand, Old and Preposterous “The GOP is unable and unwilling to have a serious conversation with Americans about the fix we are in. Republicans don’t have a plan for deficit reduction — they just have different priorities. They want tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations that they would pay for with deep cuts for working and poor families and the elderly in Medicare and Medicaid. They’d spend more on the military and even less on domestic investments. Republicans don’t have a policy, they have a posture.
The Republican budget would repeal any spending remaining in the recovery act and oppose any new spending for jobs. This includes repealing the “Make Work Pay” tax credit that gives most Americans a small tax break, and presumably the support for food stamps, aid to states to avoid layoffs of teachers and police, and the infrastructure construction projects that remain. But the Republican budget would abolish Medicare for everyone under 55, replacing it with a voucher program that would be outpaced by inflation over time. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that means about $600 billion in cuts over 10 years would come from Medicare spending. It would similarly end the guarantee that Medicaid provides to low income children, seniors and the disabled, turning it into a block grant to states that would create over $600 billion in cuts below projected expenditures.”
Let us recap the Republican record of the past 10 years and how they helped hardworking, taxpaying American families:
Republicans and Bush finished his term with the worst track record ever on jobs since the government began keeping records in 1939. In fact, there’s been zero net job creation since December 1999. “The nation has lost jobs in 25 of the 31 months that Bush has been in office, making for the worst jobs record at this point in a presidency of any administration since Herbert Hoover. Republicans authorized the government tapping our phones, reading our mail and accessing our Internet and bank accounts. Republicans oversaw the greatest pillaging of our treasury by Republicans in pork spending in America’s history.
Bush and Republicans gave close to $1 trillion in tax cuts to oil companies, big pharma, and Wall Street and allowed companies to ship jobs overseas and allowed these companies not to pay taxes in America; Bush and Republicans gave Wall Street $350 billion with no strings attached and lifted oversight of banks and Wall Street; Bush and Republicans spent no money building America’s infrastructure, they opposed health care for children and certainly had no plans to help hardworking, taxpaying Americans on health care.
Bush and Republicans implemented torture and illegal prisons; and completely ignored American Law, the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention. The greatest act of terrorism on U.S. soil occurred under the Bush and Republican Administration. Republicans and teabaggers typically vote for pro-business Republicans even when their own economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies. They seem to have a misconception that Republicans offer “moral clarity” and are adept at activating deep seated fears in as many of America’s uneducated as possible. They want Americans to be afraid of change and throw out every adjective that stirs up hate – communism, Nazi, Socialism, Death, Government take-over, etc.
It’s difficult and beyond my rationale why anyone would oppose holding Wall Street, Health Insurance Companies accountable; support giving tax breaks to the richest Americans, Oil Companies and support tax breaks for companies who ship American jobs overseas. There is nothing ‘moral’ about Republicans wanting to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security or opposing health care for America’s children, much less conducting immoral adultery and given a pass by Republicans and teabaggers.
During the worst national economic collapse, high unemployment, rising health care costs, Republicans have no plans to address any of the issues facing Americans. They only want tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations while supporting deep cuts for working and poor families and the elderly by cutting Medicare, Medicaid and investing Social Security in the stock market. They oppose any investment on domestic issues and infrastructure or people.
Republicans don’t have policies, they have a posture. They don’t have any programs to help solve American’s problems, they simply offer a message, “Be afraid, be very afraid!” I Waller
theblogmeister

While Republicans Fight Over the Florida Prize, Obama Looking Better And Better To Voters

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:39:00 +0000

The state of Florida - even without its reputation for hanging chads - loves its emerging role as the most important step in the quest for the Republican nomination and the shining hope for President Obama. "Let those Republicans fight it out here, calling each other names," said Ann Zucker, president of the Weston Democratic Club, near Ft. Lauderdale. "After listening to Romney, Gingrich and Santorum call each other every possible name in these debates, any sane voter would turn to re-electing our Democratic leader Barack Obama."
Today's headlines in Florida newspapers told the same story.

"RIVALS TRADE FIRE IN S. FLORIDA" was the banner in the Miami Herald this morning. "Contenders Slug It Out" was the lead story in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.
The Republicans' 19th debate tonight is expected to showcase the importance of the Sunshine State once again. Republicans expect to shower all of these contenders with questions as to U.S. policy towards Cuba. "As Florida goes, so goes America," is the Republican cry among potential supporters, noting that the GOP winner in Florida gets all of its 57 delegate votes at its national convention. Florida - considered a November swing state -- is a winner-take-all delegate site and has one of the country's largest GOP delegations. CNN, NBC, and polling groups for news organizations showed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in a dead heat in Florida for the Republican nomination with former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and Congressman Ron Paul with lower numbers, while similar polls also showed President Obama with growing leads among Florida voters with respect to handling the office of the presidency, handling the economy, and in positive views for employment opportunities. Local TV news shows in South Florida -- a normally huge Democratic base -- led their newscasts this week with the polling results.
Florida, still trying to throw off its reputation as the hanging chad site of 2000, has been plugging its importance as the most representative state in the early primary season and a major state in the election process with 29 electoral votes. Underscoring its importance, Florida Republicans will host a pre-selected confab for their calendar - the Hispanic Leadership Forum - on Jan. 26-27, in the Miami area, home to most of the Cubans who emigrated to the U.S. during the Castro years. Interested Republican parties as well as Democratic naysayers noted that the Forum is being heavily touted on local South Florida television. Gingrich and Romney supporters are expected to pack the Forum scheduled for the Doral Country Club. Its official sponsor, The Hispanic Leadership Network (HLN), is a self-described center-right advocacy action group, and recently announced that Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum will address its "Inspiring Action" conference. Carlos Gutierrez, who was the former Commerce Secretary under President George Bush, will serve as conference co-chair, according to the Forum's website. However, a blast of TV commercials only mention and show former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's name and Republicans say that the timing of the conference and the Jan. 31 Florida primary date is just a coincidence. Jeb Bush says he will remain neutral in the GOP's presidential primary, noting that he considers both Romney and Gingrich credible candidates. Both candidates have courted the popular former Florida governor. (Jeb's father, George H.W. Bush, has been quoted in the Houston Chronicle and on the Internet that he was giving Romney "an unofficial endorsement.") The rumor mills, however, often mention Jeb Bush as a potential nominee in a brokered convention, while other pundits have Florida's junior Senator Marco Rubio a natural for vice president, hopefully to bring with him Florida's large Hispanic vote.
TV commercials -- including those from Super PACs in Florida -- continue to dominate the political scene. Romney alone has spent several hundred thousand dollars for 60-second TV spots the past two weeks in Florida's eight expensive TV markets stretching from the Florida Panhandle to Key West. However, Gingrich and others have countered their messages, responding that Romney's 13.9 per cent in taxes from his multi-million income released to the public on the eve of Obama's State of the Union address only underscored the President's argument that the rich are not paying their fair share. Romney's tax return, released Tuesday (just before Obama's address to Congress) did not get lost in the presidential news coverage in Florida. Romney's estimated income of nearly $21 million dollars and his low rate of taxation - less than 14 per cent because of capital gains - is now fueling the emerging debate over fairness in the tax code, an issue that President Obama emphasized in his address to the nation. Romney's lack of clarity on his taxes, which continues to dog him even after issuing the 500 page document on the Internet -- is being cited as the reason he did so poorly in last week's South Carolina vote, where Gingrich won overwhelmingly. Gingrich continues to throw the tax salvos at his opponent; a wire service report cited Sen. McCain, who endorsed Romney in early January, calling on Republicans to stop negative campaigning and insults, saying it was harmful to the Republican party. Others are saying the tax issue is the reason Gingrich crushed Romney in South Carolina. "Whether it's a ball game or a political race, momentum counts...and Gingrich has it," the Republican state Senator Mike Bennett told The Tampa Bay Times in an interview picked up and reprinted around the state. CNN reported that close to 200,000 votes had already been cast as of Wednesday evening. That may be a moot point right now inasmuch as voting is already underway. Actually, Republicans - primarily die-hard fans of the four remaining GOP candidates -- are already going to the polls in record numbers because of the early voting agreement of the legislature. It allows early voting through Jan. 28, three days before the official election day. In Florida 473,573 absentee ballots have been requested in the past week and, according to election officials, "thousands" have already voted either absentee or at early voting sites around the state.
There are plenty of opinions coming from the early voters. The Miami Herald noted recently that Romney is hoping 2012 will be better than 2008 when Sen, John McCain beat him by 5 percentage points, 36-31 percent. The Herald cited examples of the Romney-Gingrich battle in Florida, such as 71-year old Julio Pallais of Miami, who came to Florida from Nicaragua 25 years ago. Pallas said he voted for Gingrich because of Romney's stance on illegal immigration, while Joy Diamond of Pompano Beach went for Romney because of Gingrich's age, 68, "not to mention his checkered past," Diamond said.
In the meantime, the debates and battle for those 57 GOP delegates will continue, even if a huge number of the Florida electorate have already voted in the past few days. Thanks to Ron Levitt for great work.
I love to see the Republicans calling each other names and making their party look bad all the way around. Romney and Gingrich are the only two with the super PAC's money keeping them in this race. I hope America sees what would happen if either candidate becomes President of the United States. If you happen to be a millionaire Romney looks appealing to you. Well, most of us are just hardworking middle-class Americans who need an advocate like President Obama. I have trust in the American people that Obama will get to finish what he started and in two years the Democratic party will gain seats in both houses. The tea party put too much on the GOP and they cannot deliver. Hope will spring eternal. I believe that. Thanks for your time. God Bless America! theblogmeister

PTSD; You Can Get Better

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:54:00 +0000

   I suffered nightmares for thirty years before the demon in me was quieted. Doctors said I had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I said it was payback for what I did while in the military. I was being haunted by someone that I killed and he was back. He took over my life and my sleep. I spent 6 weeks in an inpatient facility to learn about PTSD. I thought it was a crock, at first. Then it began to make sense the things the doctors were telling me, so, I listened. I began to use writing to heal my internal pain. You can go back to my earlier posts and find out all the pain I went through. I am much better, now. If you are suffering from nightmares and do not trust anyone, trust me. Listen to what I have written. I was you not long ago and now I am living, again. Listen to what Amy Standen says. You will recover.
   Some patients with PTSD suffer recurring nightmares of a single event. Everyone has nightmares sometimes. But for people with PTSD, it's different.
Sam Brace doesn't want to talk about what he saw when he was a soldier in Iraq eight years ago. In fact, it's something he's actively trying not to dwell on. But what he can't control are his dreams. They're almost always about the same explosion. "When I was overseas, we'd hit an IED," Brace says. "When I have a nightmare, normally it's something related to that." Healthy dreams seem kind of random, according to Steven Woodward, a psychologist with the National Center for PTSD at the VA Medical Center in Menlo Park, Calif. "They're wacky," he says. "They associate lots of things that are not normally associated." PTSD dreams are the same real-life event played over and over again like a broken record. "Replicative nightmares of traumatic events ... repeat for years," Woodward says. "Sometimes 20 years."
   Scientists wanted to find out the reason why people with PTSD can't sleep and dream normally. One theory comes from Matthew Walker, a psychology researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. His particular interest lies in rapid eye movement, or REM. It's the time during sleep when a lot of dreaming occurs. It's also a time when the chemistry of the brain actually changes. Levels of norepinephrine — a kind of adrenaline — drop out completely. REM sleep is the only time of day when this happens. That struck Walker as a mystery. "Why would rapid eye movement sleep suppress this neurochemical?" he asks. "Is there any function to that?" Walker found that in healthy people, REM sleep is kind of like therapy. It's an adrenaline-free environment where the brain can process its memories while sort of stripping off their sharp, emotional edges. "You come back the next day, and it doesn't trigger that same visceral reaction that you had at the time of learning."
Emotions are useful, he says. They show us what really matters to us. "But I don't think it's adaptive to hold onto that emotional blanket around those memories forever," he says. "They've done their job at the time of learning, then it's time to hold on to the information of that memory, but let go of the emotion." Walker's theory suggests that in people with PTSD, REM sleep is broken. The adrenaline doesn't go away like it's supposed to. The brain can't process tough memories, so it just cycles through them, again and again. So, what if you could make the adrenaline just go away? Enter prazosin. Pfizer Inc. introduced the drug under the brand name Minipress in the 1970s to treat high blood pressure. Dr. Murray Raskind, a VA psychiatrist in Seattle, says the drug, now generic, can cost anywhere between 5 and 15 cents. And, actually, it's not terribly effective as a blood pressure medication, he says. But what prazosin does do is make people less sensitive to adrenaline. About a decade ago, Raskind starting giving prazosin to some of his PTSD patients, including one Vietnam War veteran. "He had this recurrent nightmare of being trapped by the Vietcong forces in a landing zone and having his best friend killed in front of his eyes by a mortar round," Raskind says. After a few weeks of treatment with prazosin, the veteran came in for a follow-up appointment. Raskind says the veteran told him that he wasn't sure the medication was working. He was still having the same dream over and over — just about something else. He told Raskind that in the new dream he was in his fifth grade classroom and there was a test. If he didn't pass the test, he wasn't going to be promoted to the next grade. But he never even got the assignment. "I said, 'That's my nightmare!' " Raskind says. Indeed, the veteran's new dream was the stress dream of a healthy brain trying to work things out, Raskind says. This year, the VA is expected to finish up its trial for prazosin. It's already prescribing the drug to about 15 percent of its PTSD patients. Raskind, of course, would like to see that number rise. "To us, it's a simple thing that works," he says.

Obama's Vision of America

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:52:00 +0000

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama used Tuesday's State of the Union address to lay out a vision of America in which everybody gets a fair shot at economic success and everybody -- including the wealthy -- plays by the same rules as the average citizen.

"The state of our Union is getting stronger," the president told lawmakers piled into the House chamber. "As long as I'm president, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place."
In his third State of the Union address to the nation, Obama laid out a blueprint for economic success based on four components: American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers and a renewal of American values. On manufacturing, he laid out a handful of changes to the tax code aimed at creating incentives for companies to bring overseas jobs back to the United States. "Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and our country will do everything we can to help you succeed," he said. The president called for more attention to education and job training, with an emphasis on helping teachers prosper. "Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal. Give them the best resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility," he said.
Obama also addressed the deficit and noted that Congressional Democrats and Republicans have already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. Still, he said, more needs to be done. "Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?" he asked. "Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else, like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't do both."
Obama's address, which came in the midst of a rapidly escalating presidential campaign season, delivered a strong message about the need for social and economic equality and put forward a handful of new policy ideas targeting tax reform, college affordability and clean energy. But by and large, his speech was focused on proposals for boosting the economy and ensuring protections for the middle class.
"Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same," Obama said. "It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody." The bottom line, he said, is that America was built on the promise that if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send kids to college and put away money for retirement. "The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive," said the president. "No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important."
Obama laid out some notable new policy proposals, including the creation of a new international minimum tax on U.S. companies making profits overseas; the launching of a new trade enforcement unit that would target unfair trade practices in countries around the world, including China; and a plan to shift federal aid away from colleges that don't keep down tuition costs. He also announced that the Defense Department will make history's largest renewable energy purchase -- totaling 1 gigawatt. The president can use his executive power to make the last item happen.
Obama gave a push to some proposals that make for good politics but stand next to no chance of moving in Congress. Among them, a call for action on comprehensive immigration reform and a request that the Senate pass a rule that all of his nominees receive a straight up-or-down vote within 90 days of being submitted by the White House.

Ahead of the address, senior administration officials who spoke only on background and wouldn't be quoted, said the underlying message of the speech is that Obama's economic policies have been working and should be continued. The country had already lost 4 million jobs to the recession before Obama came into office and lost another 4 million before his policies took effect, they said. By contrast, Obama's policies have created more than 3 million private sector jobs in the past two years.
The officials also highlighted a new initiative to place 2 million people in jobs through new partnerships with businesses and community colleges. Steve Jobs, the recently deceased CEO of Apple, had pressed Obama for proposals like this in a past meeting, said the officials.
During his remarks, Obama reiterated his support for instituting the "Buffett rule," a concept that he and congressional Democrats have been pushing for months as a way to pay for their legislative priorities. Named after billionaire Warren Buffett, the rule would require people making more than $1 million to pay a minimum effective rate of at least 30 percent. Warren Buffett's secretary Debbie Bosanek was a guest of the First Lady at the State of the Union. Buffett has made the case that millionaires and billionaires should be taxed at higher rates by pointing out that Bosanek pays a higher effective rate than he does. "We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by," Obama said. "Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them."
Other notable attendees at the event included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who made the trip to Washington, D.C.,two days before she plans to step down to focus on her recovery after being shot in the head in Tucson in Jan. 2011. Giffords' husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, also attended as a guest of the First Lady.

Most of the speech was colored by applause by Democrats and silence from Republicans. But there were occasional moments where the entire chamber erupted into cheers. Everyone jumped to their feet when Obama declared at the start of the address, "For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country." Both parties applauded Obama's call for more tax breaks for small business. And Republicans cheered the loudest when the president said he supported their "all of the above" strategy on energy reform, which includes offshore drilling.
Obama concluded by emphasizing "the nation is great" because it was built by people who worked together as a team, which is the best way to get back to economic prosperity. "The nation is great because we get each other's backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great, no mission too hard. As long as we're joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong." The president isn't wasting any time when it comes to selling his economic vision to the country. On Wednesday, he'll kick off a three-day tour of five states, Iowa, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Michigan, which are key battlegrounds in the upcoming presidential race. The move is a convenient way for Obama to connect his governing activities to his campaigning, which has already gotten off the ground but is not yet operating at full force.
In the meantime, White House officials will spend the week managing a social media blitz. On Tuesday night, administration officials took questions from the public about the address submitted via Twitter, Facebook and Google+ in front of a live audience -- and responded to questions in real time via Twitter. From Wednesday through Friday, senior administration officials will host a marathon of online question and answer sessions via Twitter. Wednesday's panel will focus on general questions about the address. Community-focused discussions with policy advisers will take place Thursday and Friday's Q&A will be directed toward specific policy issues, including health, education and jobs. Thanks to Jennifer Bendery.
The only way this vision is possible is if the Party of No becomes the Party of Yes. We are all Americans whether Republican of Democrat and Congress needs to work together to make things happen. I can tell you the the GOP will continue to be the Party of No because of it being an election year. They do not want Obama getting credit for the ideas that will grow this country the way it needs to grow. Newt has already shot down the Presidents plans and using racial terms such as "the food stamp President " will only give ammunition to independents to vote for Obama.
I am sure the food stamp president sounds a lot better than the 'open marriage president.' Who ever wins the Republican nomination (I pray it is Newt) will not have a chance in hell debating President Obama. The Republicans have a problem and they don't even know it. theblogmeister

A Hell of a Speech

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:53:00 +0000

I didn't even wait on the Republican answer to Obama's speech because I knew what they were going to say. Negative, negative, negative. I do not know how the GOP can honestly say that was a poor speech. I am sure they will come up with all kinds of negativity. That is the Republican trademark. The President said exactly what this country needed to hear. Is it fair that people making over $250 thousand dollars pay the same tax rate as those making $50,000? If you say yes, then you are out of your mind. Pay your FAIR share . That is all the President is asking. He gave the analogy of the seal team that killed Bin Laden. There might have some Republicans and there may have been Democrats. The one thing was for certain; they all did the job that they were assigned to do. When their boss gave them their orders he did not ask their party affiliation. They all were Americans. I am certain that when the first came and they got their pay there were some extra for a job well done. I also feel certain that they did not hide their money in an off-shore po box. That is what pisses me off about Romney. Instead of paying what the United States Tax Code asked him to pay he chose to put his money in another country. I am sure it is a Romney family tradition. His Dad showed him how to skirt the laws of the United States and I am sure that Romney will teach his sons how to evade US laws, too. If you want a President that will not abide by the laws on our books, change sides on issues to please who ever he happens to be speaking with, Romney is your man. He is not mine. If he will not abide by our tax laws what other laws will he choose to evade? Our election laws? Every President since Eisenhower has signed an executive order the day he takes office making political assassinations illegal. What if Romney chooses not to do this. He has already proven to us that he has no problem evading laws in our Tax Code. What other laws will he evade? When you evade a law it is the same thing as breaking the law. Romney has been breaking the laws of our great country for years. Are we to reward him by giving him the presidency? Let me say this one more time. ROMNEY IS BREAKING THE LAW!!! The US Tax Code states if you make x-amount of dollars then you must pay x-amount of taxes. Not Romney. He chooses to break the law by putting his money in another country for the simple reason to violate tax law. He pays half of what he should pay. And you want this cheat President? You are out of your minds. Romney, go where your money is and stay there. theblogmeister

Get Rid of Super PACs, It's Time

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:51:00 +0000

Saturday marked the second anniversary of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision. This decision allows corporations to use their general treasury funds to pay for political advertisements that expressly call for the defeat or election of a candidate. The ruling also means corporations can donate large amounts of money--even up to the last day of an election--and it has dramatically increased corporate money's influence in our political process. By a 5-4 decision, the largely conservative court rejected a 63-year-old ban on use of direct corporate money in federal elections and reversed 20 years of precedent supporting this ban. As dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense."
It's no surprise then that corporate money has flooded our elections. Super PACs have been formed that can legally raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and other groups and spend that money on political messages. Between the 2008 and 2010 elections, spending by independent groups, including corporations, increased approximately 130% from $119.9 million to $280 million, according to the Campaign Finance Institute. Almost 80 super PACs spent more than $60 million calling for election or defeat of federal candidates. Keep in mind that Super PACs weren't even formed until the summer of 2010 and it wasn't even a presidential election year. In fact, OpenSecrets.org reports that just since the GOP presidential primaries have begun, 12 super PACs operated by supporters of a specific presidential candidate have spent more than $22 million on ads and other expenditures.
Corporate money in politics is one of the biggest threats to our democracy. For these reasons, I introduced the Get Corporate Money out of Politics Constitutional Amendment (H. J. RES. 92). The bill reaffirms the importance of a level playing field and authorizes Congress and the States to regulate election contributions of for-profit corporations. While protecting the freedom of the press, the Get Corporate Money out of Politics Amendment clearly states that corporations are not people. They do not vote, they do not serve in office, and they should not be able to buy our elections. Thanks to Rep. Keith Ellison.
The US Supreme Court's 5-4 decision voted along party lines. There are 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats. It is obvious that the big corporations are in the Republicans pocket. The Democrats have always been for the middle class and the low-income voter. Why do you think the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnel, the majority whip and the rest of Republicans in Congress will not tax the wealthy even when several wealthy Americans, most notably Warren Buffett, went to Congress and asked to be taxed. They all have admitted to making more money during the Bush era and felt it was the right thing to do to help the economy. Did it help. Hell no. Big Business are making record profits and especially those on Wall Street. President Obama has tried to introduce legislation stopping those million dollar bonuses that large banks are giving out to their executives. The same banks that we, the tax payer bailed out in the first place. Do you think the GOP would go along? Not a chance. The President even tried, against his own parties advice, offered to cut entitlements to get the GOP to tax the wealthy. That didn't even work. We know where the Republicans heart lies, with Big Business. They will pay for this stubbornness come mid-terms. Vote them all out. theblogmeister

Gingrich; Vote To Charge Me, It Is Quicker That Way

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:16:00 +0000

This is the most ludicrous excuse I have heard out of the mouth of the man that was charged, and ultimately relieved of his speakership, with over 80 ethics violations. Hey guys, ya'll go ahead, for the good of the country, and vote yes on these charges so we can get them out of the way and we will be able to balance the budget. If Newt thinks that anyone with half a brain will fall for that, wait, he did win South Carolina. I'm not saying that South Carolina is full of a bunch of morons but he did win. What does that tell you? Now, if he some how wins Florida with the information that is out there, now, I have to say it will not be because the Florida Republicans are keeping up with the news it will be all the medication the retirees are consuming the day of the election. There can be no other explanation. I will have to be honest, I am loving it. I have never witnessed anything close to what is happening in the GOP as it is, now. Romney has to be thinking it is a conspiracy against him. If Romney was in a run-off against a homeless wino it would be a landslide. The wino would never know how he won or who he would face, next. I would be willing to bet that Romney's sons have to go to the store in costume. It would be embarrassing to be his son. Sure, all that money they have would ease the pain bit to lose to Gingrich. I would change my name. This is pitiful.
Fresh off an upset win in the South Carolina 2012 primary Saturday night, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich found himself facing questions around the ethics charges brought against him during his tenure as Speaker of the House. Eighty-four charges of ethics violations were filed against Gingrich in 1997, resulting in his being reprimanded by the House of Representatives and fined $300,000. The ethics investigation led to his eventual resignation from Congress. Speaking Sunday on CNN, Gingrich said he was completely exonerated of the charges, and that the $300,000 penalty he paid for ethics violation was actually a 'reimbursement' for the cost of the investigation. Gingrich also claimed he persuaded fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives to vote "yes" on the ethics charges against him in order to put a swift end to the proceedings. Doing so helped lawmakers move on the balancing the budget, Gingrich said. "I personally asked House Republicans to vote 'yes' because we had to get it behind us to get back to the things that mattered," Gingrich said. Days before the South Carolina primary, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called on Gingrich to release the full ethics report. Romney said he worried about an 'October surprise' if the former speaker didn't go public now. He reminded voters that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and President Barack Obama have access to the documents. Pelosi has warned she has damaging information on the former speaker. Even members of Gingrich's own party have expressed concerns about his shady past. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who has endorsed Romney, called Gingrich an "embarrassment" to the Republican Party. "We all know the record," Christie said Sunday on Meet the Press. "I mean he was run out of the speakership by his own party." GOP candidate Rick Santorum, who came in third place in Saturday's primary, called Gingrich a "high-risk candidate" and "erratic conservative" Sunday on ABC's This Week. The Gingrich campaign has repeatedly said the full ethics report is already released and available online on the Library of Congress and House Ethics Committee's websites. Romney, give it up. You can't win. Face it.
theblogmeister

Romney is Getting Desparate

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:11:00 +0000

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- In the first few hours after Newt Gingrich's 12-point rout Saturday over Mitt Romney as the finality of the thrashing washed over the former House speaker and those in and around his campaign, a growing optimism hardened into confidence. "I think he wins Florida," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who endorsed Gingrich and stood on the stage with him Saturday night. Franks articulated how Gingrich is capturing momentum among Republicans, in part, because many feel there is a "subconscious equivocation" about core conservative issues in the heart and soul of Mitt Romney. "And it's really not fair to put that mantle upon him, of some metaphysical feeling that we wonder if he's going to be there in the clinch," Franks said. "But I'm afraid that that's kind of a ubiquitous feeling among conservatives."
Kevin Kellems, one of Gingrich's top advisers, said that "Gov. Romney’s campaign is now showing real signs of being off-balance and nervous. There must be a reason for it." When asked for specific signs of anxiety in the Romney campaign, Kellems responded by email, "among others, Gov. Romney's inability to answer basic questions about his taxes without bouncing around the podium like an overcaffeinated high-schooler being put on the spot by his parents." Kellems, a former White House aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and a veteran Republican political figure from Indiana, has become the closest thing to a campaign manager for Gingrich, though he disavows the title. "Newt runs his own campaign," Kellems said from inside the empty Hilton ballroom where Gingrich had an hour or so earlier given a 23-minute victory speech to hundreds of rowdy, boozy supporters. Regarding Florida, Kellems indicated that Romney's money and organizational advantage could be swept aside by the genuine enthusiasm among conservative Republicans for Gingrich. "In South Carolina, Gingrich was outspent 2 to 1 by Romney and his allies, which potentially bodes well for Gingrich in Florida," Kellems said. "Considering the size of his South Carolina victory margin, Newt Gingrich has proven himself to be the conservative alternative to Massachusetts moderate Mitt." Kellems expressed confidence that Gingrich's hot-blooded, no-holds-barred style of conservative politics would eventually win out over Romney's approach, sooner or later. "Newt doesn’t think in terms of absolute marks on the primary calendar -- he thinks in terms of why his bold conservative approach to jobs and growth can eventually prevail over a timid moderate," Kellems said. "How long that will take is anyone's guess at this stage." That adjective, "timid," seems to capture the way that Gingrich, his campaign and his supporters feel about Romney -- and why they don't like him. "I don't think Romney created enough heat. He's been leading here, campaigning for five years and never created any heat," said Katon Dawson, a former South Carolina GOP chairman who helped lead the state effort for Gingrich. "I don't think he's got that conservative passion to do it. I don't think they believe him. I don't think he connects."
The proposition that Romney is timid is about to be tested in Florida and beyond. Romney's campaign -- starting with the campaign manager Matt Rhoades -- knows full well how to conduct bare-knuckled politics and is gearing up to do so. "Speaker Gingrich is a failed leader who had to resign in disgrace," said Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told HuffPost on Sunday, previewing the line of attack Romney supporters will pursue in the coming days. "He had his chance to change Washington. Since leaving government, Newt Gingrich has been a lobbyist in Washington. This is not the type of leadership we want in the White House."
On Sunday afternoon, at Romney's first campaign event in Florida since his loss in South Carolina, he went after Gingrich in a way he has never done before, signaling an escalation on his part. Romney said that Gingrich, after his four years as House speaker, was a "failed leader" and "had to resign in disgrace," according to CBS News. Gingrich was reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee and had to pay a $300,000 fine, but he said on Sunday in a CNN interview that the fine was to pay for the cost of the investigation and that he was cleared of wrongdoing. But Romney's attacks are sure to bring much more attention to exactly what happened in the House ethics probe, which eventually led to Gingrich's decision to leave his post as speaker and his seat in Congress in 1999.
Romney also criticized Gingrich's work for mortgage giant Freddie Mac. From CBS:
"Well, what's he been doing for 15 years? He's been working as a lobbyist, yeah. He's been working as a lobbyist and selling influence around Washington. He's been working for Freddie Mac. Heard of those guys?" Romney said, in a state where housing foreclosures, including some presided over by the mortgage giant, have left the economy in tatters.
He called on Gingrich to release the records of his contract with Freddie Mac, which paid him more than $1.6 million over eight years. "What was his work product there? What was he doing at Freddie Mac? Because Freddie Mac figures very prominently into the fact that people in Florida have seen home values go down. It's time to turn that around!" Romney said. Thanks to Jon Ward.
Romney is not used to being in this position. After he thought he won Iowa, then the good showing in New Hampshire gave him a feeling of invincibility. The position he finds himself in, today, gives him the feeling of, 'What the hell am I to do?' Just keep doing what you are doing. Obama will slaughter Newt in the general election. The Republicans cannot figure out what to do. The Obama team knows exactly what to do and I find it comical that Newt is not looking past this election. It will be ugly come November. theblogmeister

Sunshine = Sadie. Forget Ploitics

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:39:00 +0000

I am sitting here enjoying the company of my Grand Daughter, Sadie. It is ironic that my Grand Mother's name was Sarah. Unfortunately, my Momma Susie, as she was known by all, was a wonderful person who died suddenly without a chance to say good-bye. Having been brought up in a time that most Americans cared less to nothing about the housing bubble, oil prices, the Strait of Hormuz. They thought Bin Laden was some kind of fancy way to make moonshine. Those days were so much more simpler. You never saw any fat kids, or kids that owned two pairs of shoes. Every one had a pair of descent looking shoes for Sunday-go-to-meeting . If you had a Father that downed a lot of trees you might have a pair of Chuck Taylor's for basketball. If you didn't have that blue star on the ankle of your tennis shoes then you rode the pine. I guess the coach wanted to give the opponents the impression that we were real ballers. And why did they call them tennis shoes. Everyone I knew who owned a pair of Chuck Taylors played round ball. I remember the day my Mom saved enough to get me and my brothers a pair. Hell, there were 5 of us. Back then they cost $20 dollars a pair. It must have been her whole check. Never thought about it until years later. The one thing about those Chucks , they could withstand many trips to the washing machine. My brother got hold of some water-proof ink and drew a checkerboard design on his shoes. If it wasn't so time consuming he would have made good money. He didn't want anyone to have a pair that resembled his. A few years later my brother was killed in a car wreck and we buried him with his designed Chuck Taylor's on his feet and a hacky sack in his hand. A sad day. It was the first time that I ever saw my Dad cry. Where was I? Oh yea, basketball. We used to meet every Saturday morning, no Friday night life, and this janitor(soon to be coach) would open the high school gym for us kids to play. After warm-ups the coach ( janitor) would break us up into two teams. 'Shirts' and 'Skins'. I had hoped I would get skins because I had a dark tan and that would seem to make me overheat, a lot. It was the opposite for a friend of mine. He did not like it, at all, when he had to take his shirt off. Even when we were at the pool he had to have his shirt on. In retrospect, he was very self-conscious about the way his body was shaped. He was a fat kid. Everybody liked him and didn't see his weight as a problem, only he did. The coach(janitor) picked up on this and always chose him to be on the 'shirts' side. Let me tell you about our coach(janitor), he would try and get us to play like the high school kids. Run plays, screen, pass the ball. He even had a name for it. The 1-3-1. We didn't know what the hell we were doing. When the coach(janitor) got pissed and we didn't do what he told us out came that slipper or tennis shoe. The kind people wear that are on a boat. I don't know what they are called but I do know that they will blister that ass. I would go home every Saturday with a shoe print on my ass. If that shit happened today that coach(janitor) would be sued for everything he owes. All of his pull on deck shoes would be gone plus anything else of value. But there is one thing the lawyers cannot get. His passion for teaching kids right from wrong and we need more of those coaches(janitors) in the world. Thanks Coach J theblogmeister

The Truth About Last Nights Debate

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:55:00 +0000

It is time to examine the statements made by Republican candidates during last nights debates in Charleston S.C. First we will look at Rick Santorums statements on Obama's budget cuts. Here is what Santorum said, "We have the President of the United States who said he is going to cut veterans benefits, cut our military, at a time when these folks are four, five, six, seven tours, coming back, in and out of jobs, sacrificing everything for this country. And the President of the United States can't cut one penny out of the social welfare system and he wants to cut a trillion dollars out of our military and hit our veterans, and that's disgusting." Let me tell you the FACTS. The Obama administration has struggled to bring down a staggering - and growing - budget deficit since taking office in 2009. The first thing that matters is that what ever the idea Obama proposes, even if it is a Republican idea, they vote no. Depressed tax revenues due to the 2007-2009 recession, spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, increased aid to the unemployed and the last of Obama's economic stimulus bill helped the deficit swell to a projected $1.3 trillion for the fiscal year 2011.
The 2010 election put added pressure on the administration as anti-tax anti-spending Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, resulting in three budgetary stand-offs between Congress and the White House in 2011.
Obama has, in fact, proposed a series of budget cuts, to the dismay of his supporters. In September he proposed wringing more than $300 billion from Medicare and Medicaid, the federal health-care programs for the poor and elderly, as part of an effort to reduce the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade. In August his budget chiefs warned government agencies to brace for cuts of 5% to 10% for 2013. And in January 2010, the administration proposed saving of $250 billion by freezing all non-security discretionary spending for three years. The Department of Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs were EXEMPTED from that proposal. The administration projects it will save $1.1 trillion on defense in the coming 10 years- mostly because we are not wasting massive amounts of money in Iraq and troop levels in Afghanistan will soon be pulling back. Santorum is wrong on two counts. Obama has proposed cuts to significant portions of the US safety net, at the same time he added spending on veteran spending benefits to accommodate the large number of returning American veterans. And a large portion of the planned spending cuts come from the end of two long-running wars.
Newt Gingrich on distrust of government and possible health care repeal;
Newt said the country's distrust of Washington and fear of centralized medicine would create pressure to repeal the health care act. His statement, "The American people are frightened of bureaucratic, centralized medicine. They deeply distrust Washington. The pressure will be to repeal it." The fact is most Americans "distrust Congress," according to a CNN/Research Corp. poll conducted in September. Only 2% of Americans said they would "just about always" trust the federal government, while 77% said they could trust it some of the time. Another poll earlier this month found President Barack Obama's approval rating at 49%, while approval of Congress plunged to 11%. By comparison, in 1958 - before the war in Vietnam, Watergate and the revelations that spilled out of Washington in their aftermath - 73% of Americans said they could trust the federal government all or most of the time. But Gingrich is off when he characterizes public opinion as building up pressure behind a promised repeal of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the law Republicans call "Obamacare." A CNN/ORC poll in November found that while the bill remains unpopular, some of the opposition comes from people who don't think it went far enough toward establishing universal health insurance. Asked whether they approved or disapproved of the health-care law, much of which has yet to take effect, only 38% said they favored it; 56% said they were opposed. But only 37% said they opposed it because it went too far; an additional 14% said they opposed it because it wasn't liberal enough. And while the public remains divided over the idea of requiring all Americans to buy health insurance - the cornerstone of the law - opposition has softened over the past year. Another November poll by CNN found 52% favored mandatory health insurance, up from 44% in June; opposition dropped from 54% in June to 47% in November. Gingrich is right that there is a widespread distrust of Washington, but that doesn't appear to be translating into more support for repealing one of the most controversial acts of the Obama administration to date.
Mitt Romney defends his record on abortion; "What came to my desk was a piece of legislation that said, 'We're going to redefine when life begins.' In our state, we said life began at conception. The Legislature wanted to change that to say, 'no, we're going to do that at implantation.' I vetoed that. The Legislature also said, 'We want to allow cloning for purposes of creating new embryos of testing.' I vetoed that. They didn't want abstinence education; I pursued abstinence education. There was an effort to have a morning-after pill provided to young women in their teens; I vetoed that. I stood as a pro-life governor." Romney ran two statewide campaigns in Massachusetts - an unsuccessful bid for Senate in 1994 and a winning one for governor in 2002 - as a supporter of abortion rights. But in 2005, he vetoed an emergency contraception bill and declared in the pages of the Boston Globe that he was an opponent of abortion, though he "respected the state's democratically held view" in favor of abortion rights. Romney went on to veto the other bills he mentioned as well, though state lawmakers overrode his veto of a bill that would have allowed the creation of embryos for stem-cell research. In April 2006, he announced $800,000 in grants for abstinence education programs, which are supported by many religious conservatives as an alternative to sex education. Romney's opposition to abortion is still viewed suspiciously by many conservatives, but his record supports the claims he made Thursday night.
Does Ron Paul's WWII anecdote ring true? "After World War II, we had 10 million come home all at once. But what did we do then? There were some of the liberals back then that said, 'Oh, we have to have more work programs and do this and that.' And they thought they would have to do everything conceivable for those 10 million. They never got around to it because they came home so quickly. And you know what the government did? They cut the budget by 60%. They cut taxes by 30%. By that time, the debt had been liquidated. And everybody went back to work again, you didn't need any special programs." The end of World War II did see a sharp decrease in federal spending as the United States demobilized. The U.S. budget grew nearly tenfold between 1940 and 1945, peaking at about $93 billion - $1.2 trillion in today's dollars. By 1948, it had fallen to $30 billion, or about a third of 1945 outlays, according to federal records. Taxes went down as well during that period, though rates stayed high. The top tax rate in 1945 was 94%. The rate was cut to 91% by 1948, and the threshold for paying that rate went up from about $200,000 to more than 1.8 million in current dollars, according to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan Washington research group.
But demobilization was not as smooth as Paul portrays. The U.S. economy saw two recessions between 1945 and 1950 as veterans returned home and factories retooled for civilian work. The war bonds sold to finance the conflict weren't retired until the early 1980s, according to the Treasury Department, though revenue from the eventual postwar boom kept the debt manageable. The top tax rate stayed at 91% until the Kennedy administration. Most significantly, the libertarian congressman underplays the role of the federal government in helping veterans coming home. The Employment Act of 1946 "committed the federal government to take all practical measures to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power," according to a 2003 study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Then there is the law many historians consider one of the most significant pieces of legislation of the 20th century: the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the G.I. Bill. It sent millions of veterans to college, provided government backing for home loans and is credited with laying the foundations of the modern middle class. Paul is correct that spending and taxes came down after 1945, as would be expected at the end of a conflict that saw the entire might of the United States thrown into the war effort. But he leaves out both the long-term debt and high tax rates left behind as Washington paid off the war and gives short shrift to the efforts made to resettle veterans who came home.
My thanks goes out to Julie, Lindsey and Matt. theblogmeister

I Would Vote for Colbert!

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:07:00 +0000

After Stephen Colbert received the blessing of the Federal Election Commission for his super PAC, the Comedy Central host proudly touted the names of donors at the bottom scroll of the television screen on his show, " The Colbert Report. " But then he thought better of it. Colbert soon realized that he would not be in the same league as his fundraising idol, GOP strategist and pundit Karl Rove, without taking things one step further-by letting his donors give their money in secret.
American Crossroads, the Rove-linked super PAC, also has a sister group called Crossroads GPS, which is a nonprofit formed under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. That group can raise unlimited money - just like a super PAC - but does not have to disclose its donors. In fact, Crossroads GPS has taken in considerably more money than the super PAC.
As it turns out, starting a 501(c)(4) is much easier than starting a PAC. You just file your application for a nonprofit status with the Internal Revenue Service and - because approval has been simply a formality - you are allowed to declare yourself a 501(c)(4) even before you are approved. But unlike section 527 of the tax code, which was explicitly created for political advocacy groups, section 501(c)(4) was intended for what are known as "social welfare groups." IRS guidelines for (c)(4) status state intervening in political campaigns, while not prohibited, cannot be the primary activity. Instead, such groups " must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of of people of the community." So how can organizations that are so clearly political in nature make that claim?
The distinctions that groups like Crossroads GPS use to argue that they are not primarily political campaign groups is based on FEC (not IRS)rules that split political advertisements into two categories. Ads that call for an election or defeat of a candidate are deemed political. But other ads, even if they praise or criticize a candidate, are deemed to be non-political as long as they ask the viewer to take some sort of action on a policy or issue - or if their main focus is on an issue, such as off-shore drilling, free trade or collective bargaining rights, rather than a candidate. Now, that is splitting hairs, to me. Loopholes, just like Romney and his PO box in the Caymans. Those ads fall under the rubic issue of "issue advocacy." So how can organizations that are so clearly political in nature make that claim? The distinction that groups like Crossroads GPS use to argue that they are not primarily political campaign groups is based on FEC (not IRS) rules that split political advertisements into two categories. Ads that call for the election or defeat of a candidate are deemed political. But other ads, even if they praise or criticize a candidate, are deemed to be non-political as long as they ask the viewer to take some sort of action on a policy or issue -- or if their main focus is on an issue, such as offshore drilling, free trade or collective bargaining rights, rather than a candidate. Those ads fall under the rubric of "issue advocacy."
Political 501(c)(4)s across the spectrum insist that the ads qualify as legitimate "social welfare" expenses -- even when their election-related goal is utterly transparent. Crossroads GPS, for instance, argues that it can spend millions of dollars attacking not just incumbents, but candidates like Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, and count that spending on the non-political side of the ledger. Often, these ads end by asking viewers to call the candidate's office to express support for a particular issue. The fact that so many overtly political groups, like Crossroads GPS, are operating as 501(c)(4)s has ignited calls from senators and campaign finance watchdogs for the IRS to investigate, then reject, their applications. And indeed, many of their applications -- including that of Crossroads GPS -- are still pending. But the IRS, likely fearful of stepping into a major political controversy, has so far not taken any action.
ANOTHER WAY TO STAY SECRET
In the same Sept. 29 2011, episode in which they created a 501(c)(4), Colbert and his lawyer, Trevor Potter, also created an anonymous shell corporation. 501(c)(4) groups are not the only way to provide donors with anonymity -- donors can also form a shell corporation (or a nonprofit of their own) and funnel the money to the super PAC that way. For instance, in the summer of 2011, the super PAC supporting former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for president reported a $1 million donation from a previously unknown corporation, W Spann LLC. The corporation was formed in Delaware in time to make the contribution, then immediately dissolved, allowing it to hide the identity of its officers. Such a brazen move provoked intense scrutiny, and eventually the man behind W Spann, former Bain Capital managing director Ed Conard, came forward to end the controversy.
In this case, creating an anonymous shell corporation may have been overkill. But still fun. There is no sign that Colbert's nonprofit or shell corporation -- which he combined into one entity -- has engaged in any activity, as of yet. Of course, that's the whole point, isn't it? The nonprofit does not need to disclose its donors for ads that are deemed to be "social welfare" expenses. We may find out that his nonprofit, after receiving secret donations, gave money to fund his super PAC, which will then disclose that it received money only from the nonprofit, not from donors who gave to the nonprofit. Further complicating the picture is that the super PAC doesn't have to disclose its donors to the public until Jan. 31, nearly two weeks after Colbert's run for the presidency of the United States of South Carolina will have ended.
These campaign laws are a farce. If other countries look to us as a champion in democracy it shames me to think that. Can you believe what you have just read? I want to thank Paul Blumfield for his guidance in this story. theblogmeister

Mitt Loses Iowa, Paul Loves Getting High

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:03:00 +0000

The morning began with news that he actually lost the Jan. 3 caucus vote in Iowa to Rick Santorum. Then, sources say, Rick Perry dropped out endorsed Newt Gingrich — the only candidate that, according to the polls, has a good shot at beating Romney in South Carolina's Saturday vote. "There is no viable path forward for me in this 2012 campaign...I am endorsing Newt Gingrich," Perry said. "We need bold conservative leadership that will take on the entrenched special interests and bring our country back. I believe the mission is greater than the man." The one-two punch upset the political narrative about Romney as the inevitable Republican candidate. Romney was already 2-0 heading into South Carolina. But the re-counted Iowa ballots show he's now 1-1. Romney was cruising ahead in South Carolina as well until the weekend debate where Gingrich got a standing ovation from the crowd. After that, polls showed the race tightening.
That makes Saturday's primary winner crucial — especially in Florida, where the electorate is driven in large part by television. "It's the narrative that matters. The winner in South Carolina matters," said David "DJ" Johnson, a former Republican Party of Florida executive director and Florida adviser to Jon Huntsman's now-scuttled campaign. "Debates matter, too, and it just so happens there's one tonight," Johnson said. But, he noted, the South Carolina winner isn't guaranteed a victory in Florida, which has more party-nominating delegates and Electoral College votes than the other three early-voting states combined.
Republicans have cast more than 138,000 absentee mail-in ballots already in Florida. Another 5,000 have early voted at the polls in some Florida counties, including Republican-rich Hillsborough. And Romney has been running a full-bore campaign targeting early voters by mail while spending an estimated $2.5 million on television commercials in Florida. Only Gingrich has begun advertising in Florida — but on radio. He has sent Republican voters two mail pieces at most. Romney has sent at least four to some voters. Still, with Romney making such a strong push and him doing so well for so long, it's likely that he's leading in the 143,000 ballots already cast.
Gingrich also has a dose of bad news he'll have to deal with: His ex-wife, Marianne, told ABC News that Gingrich wasn't so holy when it came to their marriage, where he cheated with the congressional aide who's now his wife. "And I just stared at him and he said, 'Callista doesn't care what I do,'" Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. "He wanted an open marriage and I refused." In an evangelical-heavy state like South Carolina, where Gingrich has taken a conservative stance on abortion-restrictions and gay marriage, the interview could damage the former House Speaker.
Also, it's unclear how much Perry will support Gingrich and whether his support really means anything. Perry only garnered 6 percent of the vote in a CNN poll. And his campaign appearances in South Carolina have been characterized by small, unenthusiastic crowds. Still, Perry's withdrawal narrows field where the conservative vote had been splintered. Now those conservative voters, assuming they don't suddenly back Romney, will have to decide between Santorum, Gingrich and Ron Paul, whose base appears to rest with younger and independent voters. So now we are down to three. Well, four, if you count the other Mitt.
A large part of the younger crowd likes the idea that they can smoke weed buy voting for Dr. No, as he is called by his fellow congressmen. I do not think that they realize Dr. No cannot pass laws without the help of congress. It will be next to impossible to legalize drugs without congressional help. I cannot think of anyone that supports Paul openly. Some may feel the way Paul does on touchy issues, however, to openly support him is political suicide. Paul never attends caucus meetings or has anything to do with fellow Republicans. He is a loner with a big mouth. A dangerous man. theblogmeister

Gingrich Using the S-Word!

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:06:00 +0000

I thought we could make it through this election without using the S-word. I was wrong. We find out that Newt has been endorsed by, you guessed it, Sarah. Political pressure coming out of the Romney camp has created the one thing I was hoping never to see, again. Didn't Newt learn anything from the last election? Sarah Palin was the reason McCain lost the Presidency. It is so obvious, to me. She is the most polarizing politician in the last 50 years. The Gingrich campaign is desperate, otherwise, we would have heard her name before now. The GOP are desperate. They are pulling out all the stops to keep from Romney becoming the nominee. This election is lost before it ever got started for them. You know as well as I that Newt would have never used the S-word had he not lost Iowa and New Hampshire. The Republican party is so dysfunctional that Paul is still a major player in this race. Here is a sampling of what others say about Newt; Mitt Romney's campaign on Wednesday deployed two former members of Congress who served with Newt Gingrich in the 1990s to hammer the former speaker for what they called his "unreliable" style of leadership. "The speaker is running as a reliable conservative leader who can represent our movement and our party, and he's not that, because he's not reliable," said former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), who was in the House from 1993 to 2001, during a conference call with reporters. "Yes, he can say exciting things," Talent said of Gingrich. "He also says things which undermine the conservative movement and he says them in outrageous and destructive ways."
As examples, Talent listed Gingrich's criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) plan to reform Medicare, his opposition to President George W. Bush's 2007 troop "surge" in Iraq, his promotion of global warming legislation alongside former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and his attacks on Romney's past career in private equity.
Talent said Gingrich's own party removed him from his role as speaker in 1998 because "he had become the issue" and because members like him were tired of "going home and having to clean up after our speaker." Former Rep. Susan Molinari (R-N.Y.), who participated in the call along with Talent, said Gingrich "does not have the personality and the temperament to lead a political party, to lead a movement against somebody like President Obama, and certainly to be commander-in-chief." Talent and Molinari even blamed Gingrich for helping President Bill Clinton get reelected in 1996. "The issue was no longer President Clinton, even during one of the more chaotic times in the White House," Molinari said, referring to Clinton's impeachment scandal. "The issue still remained the judgment and the words of Newt Gingrich."
Referring to the 2012 election, Molinari and Talent said if Gingrich were the Republican nominee, he would prevent the election from being a referendum on the incumbent Democratic president. "We do not want Speaker Gingrich to help re-elect another Democratic president," Molinari said Gingrich was "a very powerful negative force for the Republican Party" in 1998 and argued that "he has not changed and become more disciplined."
"The issue has to be President Obama's performance in office," she said, adding that if Gingrich is the Republican nominee, "we don't think that's a comparison that will be allowed to be made."
"If the speaker is the nominee he's going to be the issue," Talent added. Jon Ward of The Huffington Post.
Sounds to me like these guys know Newt and are blaming him for Clinton's reelection. Thanks, Newt. Then, again, thanks for ruining my day by mentioning the S word! theblogmeister

The GOP Debates; Losing a Couple of Idiots

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 23:35:00 +0000

I am not a seer, nor a speculator, just an average middle-aged Southern Man waiting to see what idiot hits, next. Idiot implies ignorance, therefore, it is the wrong noun I am using. These men that will meet in New Hampshire to try and talk their way to South Carolina are not ignorant, by no means. They are just blatant liars that want Obama's power taken away from him because he is an African-American. They, the Republicans as a whole, will not let go of the birther conspiracy. Someone recently claimed that they had proof that Obama was not born in America. Another claims his election to the Presidency is unconstitutional, because his Father was not a natural born citizen of these United States of America. I am convinced that the GOP does not have the faintest idea the concept of the word united in a bipartisan manner. They have no problem, at all, uniting together to do what is good for some Americans, not all. They do not care that so many middle class Americans have no medical insurance because of the outrageous costs. When someone, not just anyone, an African American, finds a way to get health insurance for more people in history. Why is that a problem? Why did you not see US Supreme Court challenges when then Gov. Mitt Romney enacted very similar laws in Massachusetts, then went on Fox news, here I'm just guessing, it may have been CNBC, NOT! touting how he believed that this model could become the law of the land. Then he said he did not agree with Obama care. Was it his race? Not Romney, he is Jewish when he sees someone with a Menorah and if he is talking to a group of Irish on St. Patty's day his hair will be dyed red. The GOP almost ran this country so far down we would have never recovered. Let's let Ron Paul try his hand at it. He would bring all our soldiers home (unconstitutional), Close most Oversight and Protection agencies(unconstitutional), burn down the Federal Reserve and use only gold and silver as currency (constitutional). This is a very dangerous man, and he has money(not gold or silver), the unconstitutional kind. Obama wants to force those big insurance companies to actually use all those premiums to help someone with a pre-exsisting illness. But nooooo. The Republicans want to stop it. By spending a lot of money in attorney's fees fighting it in court. Now, why does it bother them that it will cause them to spend millions to keep poor people from getting treatment? They said that you can't make people buy insurance. Bullshit! It is the law in my state to have car insurance. The insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is pushing this wagon. They love to take your Blue X premiums for a few years then deny coverage because that tumor started growing when you had a different job and insurance. It's right there in tiny print, you just have to get Hubble to read it. If you are lucky enough to have some kind of insurance and get to actually see a doctor, when you go get the script filled it costs you hundreds when they paid pennies. I had a spinal fusion done in my lumbar region and I asked for an itemized bill. I almost messed my pants. The titanium screw that was used to bolt a rod to my tailbone, the same titanium bolt that broke in half, costs $8,000 dollars. Imagine that. This is a few examples of what the Republicans are fighting to keep. They want the $25 million Christmas bonus to continue to a bank that just borrowed $360 million from the government to keep them in business. Then the GOP gets pissed because Obama wants to have access to Wall Street's books to keep them honest. Republicans are liars and cheats. Just ask Romney what he thought about bailing out the car industry? He thought it was a great idea until he found out that he was against it. It must be tough, Mitt, not knowing when Cybill will speak. I urge all Americans to not give these looney tunes any power that will possibly make the Mayan temple notes a reality. Just kick back and listen to the lies that come out of their mouths. It all starts, soon. Dianne and George will be hosting this little get together of American dream crushers and snake oil salesmen. That is all it really is, a circus. theblogmeister

Mitt Needs To Sell Flip-Flops

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 01:54:00 +0000

A Washington research group has studied Romney's tax plan and stated that if he becomes President this is what it would look like. Households that make less than $20,000 dollars would see their taxes increase by more than 60%. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 would get small cuts, averaging 2.2%, or about $250 dollars. Households that make more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging 15%, or about $146,000 dollars. What does this look like to you? Well, it depends on how much money you make, I would guess. Obama tried to increase the tax rate for those over $1 million and give the middle-class a better deal. The Repubes in Congress would not hear it. Now, all you Romney lovers, I have a film clip to share. Please watch, www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g and see for yourself that the man you want to be President will say anything, depending on who is listening. It is proof that he is a man that cannot be trusted, plain and simple. After you enjoy the flip-flop video, now, listen to what he says about his health care efforts when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Obamacare, as Mitt so eloquently puts it, is bad for America. Click this link and see what he said, enjoy some popcorn, this will take a while. www.c-spanvideo.org/program/299476-1 Watch C-Span and listen for yourself. Mitt ain'i It! theblogmeister

I will ask the question everyone else is afraid to ask; Do we want a Mormon in the White House?

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:48:00 +0000

Mormonism, originated in the 1820s in western New York. Restored by Joseph Smith, Jr., the faith drew its first converts while Smith was dictating the text of the Book of Mormon. This book described itself as a chronicle of early indigenous peoples of the Americas, portraying them as believing Israelites, who had a belief in Christ many hundred years before his birth. Smith claimed he translated over 500 pages in about 60 days, and that it was an ancient record translated "by the gift and power of God". During production of this work in mid-1829, Smith, his close associate Oliver Cowdery, and other early followers began baptizing new converts into a Christian primitivist church, formally organized in 1830 as the Church of Christ. Smith was seen by his followers as a modern-day prophet.

Smith told his followers that he had seen a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ in spring 1820 in answer to his question of which sect he should join. Sometimes called the "First Vision", Smith's vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate beings was reportedly the basis for the difference in doctrine between Mormonism's view of the nature of God and that of orthodox Christianity. Smith's 1838 written account of this vision is considered by some Mormon denominations to be scripture and is contained in a book called "The Pearl of Great Price." Smith further claimed that in answer to his prayer: "I was answered [by Jesus] that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." By 1830, Smith reported that he had been instructed that God would use him to re-establish the true Christian church and that the Book of Mormon would be the means of establishing 'correct' doctrine for the restored church. I thought that was the reason Jesus died on the cross?
   Most Mormons self-identify as Christian, though some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity. Mormons believe in the Bible, as well as other books of scripture, such as the Book of Mormon. They have a unique view of cosmology, and believe that all people are spirit-children of God. Mormons believe that returning to God requires following the example of Jesus Christ, and accepting his atonement through specific ordinances such as baptism. They believe the authority to perform these ordinances was restored through Joseph Smith, and that their church is guided by living prophets and apostles. I pray that Romney does not get any apostolic ideas if he gets the White House.   The term "Mormon" is borrowed from the title of the Book of Mormon. It was first applied pejoratively, yes, I looked it up. It means as an adjective, having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force, and as a noun, poetaster. you got me.  To followers of Joseph Smith, but was soon adopted as a nickname and has since lost its pejorative status. "Mormon" is most often used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The term has also been embraced by other adherents of Mormonism, such as Mormon fundamentalists, but rejected by other Latter Day Saint denominations, such as the Community of Christ.  Smith's church grew steadily, but from the beginning in 1830, its members were persecuted. To avoid persecution from New York residents, the members moved to Kirtland, Ohio and hoped to establish a permanent New Jerusalem in Jackson County, Missouri. However, they were expelled from Jackson County in 1833 and forced to flee Kirtland in early 1838. In Missouri, the Mormon War of 1838 resulted in the "Mormon Extermination Order," resulting in the expulsion of Latter Day Saints from Missouri, and they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois. In 1844, Smith was killed by members of the Illinois militia, precipitating a succesion crisis. I cannot find anywhere that he was raised on the third day.
The largest group of Mormons accepted Brigham Young as the new prophet/leader and emigrated to what became the Utah Territory, where they incorporated The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church began to openly practice plural marriage, a form of polygamy that Smith had instituted in Nauvoo. Plural marriage became the faith's most sensational characteristic during the 19th century, but vigorous opposition by the United States Congress threatened the church's existence as a legal institution. In his 1890 Manifesto, church president Wilford Woodruff announced the official end of plural marriage, though the practice continued unofficially until the early 20th century.
       I guess The Holy Bible is used when it is convienent for the church. I know of no scripture that mentions Joseph Smith or Brigham Young as prophets. Nor do I find Mohammed listed as a prophet in the Holy Bible, yet, Muslims too claim he was a prophet according to the Koran. I don't know, I'm just saying?
   The term "Mormon" is borrowed from the title of the Book of Mormon. It was first applied pejoratively to followers of Joseph Smith, but was soon adopted as a nickname and has since lost its pejorative status. "Mormon" is most often used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The term has also been embraced by other adherents of Mormonism, such as Mormon fundamentalists, but rejected by other Latter Day Saint denominations, such as the Community of Christ. As the Community of Christ. did someone force them to drop Mr. Smith's name for a reason?
The word Mormon is often associated with polygamy. Polygamy (or plural marriage) was a distinguishing practice of many early Mormons; however it was renounced by The LDS Church in 1890, and discontinued over the next 15 years. Today, polygamy is practiced only by so-called Mormon fundamentalist groups that have broken with the LDS Church. Both LDS Church members (or "Latter-day Saints") and members of fundamentalist groups commonly use the word Mormon in reference to themselves. The LDS Church, however, disagrees with this self-characterization, and encourages that the word Mormon be used only in reference to LDS Church members.
   Mormons' history has shaped them into a people with a strong sense of unity and communality. From the start, Mormons have tried to establish what they call Zion, a utopian society of the righteous. Mormon history can be divided into three broad time periods: (1) the early history during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, (2) a "pioneer era" under the leadership of Brigham Young and his successors, and (3) a modern era beginning around the turn of the 20th century. In the first period, Smith had tried to literally build a city called Zion, to which converts gathered. During the pioneer era, Zion became a "landscape of villages" in Utah. In modern times, Zion is still an ideal, though Mormons gather together in their individual congregations rather than a central geographic location. Any chance Romney will mistake The White House for Zion?
     Smith intended to establish the city of Zion (or the New Jerusalem) in North America. them from Jackson County. After leading Zion's Camp, an unsuccessful expedition to recover the land, Smith began building a temple in Kirtland, where the church flourished^] The Kirtland era ended in 1838, after the failure of a church-sponsored bank caused widespread defections.
    Isolation in Utah had allowed Mormons to create a culture of their own. As the faith spread around the world, many of its more distinctive practices followed. Mormons converts are urged to undergo lifestyle changes, "repent of their sins," and adopt sometimes foreign standards of conduct. Practices common to Mormons include studying the scriptures, praying daily, fasting on a regular basis, attending Sunday worship services, participating in church programs and activities on weekdays, and refraining from work on Sundays when possible. That will be very difficult for The President. Mormons also emphasize standards they believe were taught by Jesus Christ, first it was a dude from Pennsylvania, including personal honesty, integrity, obedience to law, chastity, and a few other things, outside of marriage and fidelity, with a ?, within marriage.
   I have read enough. Hey, he may be a great guy, I'm sure he is, but he did lie about his father marching with Dr. King. Newt called him a liar only yesterday. He knows who is responsible for millions or dollars spent on negative advertising in Iowa. Why didn't he donate it to The Red Cross. Alabama has been having it rough, lately. So has Joplin. I'm not ready to vote for someone that will do anything to get in the White House! Hell, if you are filthy rich, vote for him, he will be your best bud. I'm not that way. Later, theblogmeister

Mitt Romney; Front Runner

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:12:00 +0000

After watching several debates and doing some reading on Mr. Romney I have come to the conclusion that he will probably get the GOP nomination, or not. This is an interesting politician and believe me when I say a politician, or an outsider; no he's a politician. A very rich politician. Avery rich and shrewd politician. He also will steal from his fellow Republicans. In a story I read from The Boston Globe he wanted to help out his fellow Republicans by starting a new PAC called A Free and Strong America. So, he, with his own money, sent out newsletters to his Republican allies asking for money to be sent to him and he would help out fellow Republicans that were seeking re-election in various races in his home state of Massachusetts helping them to win their race. His fellow, loyal, friends sent him a total of $2.1 million dollars for his PAC. What did he do with the money? A total of 12% were sent to those that were backing him in his up-coming Presidential bid. Most of those friends ran unopposed. What about the rest of the money? It went in his pocket. Why did he do that, the man is worth a quarter of a billion dollars? That was billions, with a B! I would say that scam worked. Be warned, if you are giving money to Mitt Romney it will be his.
On a Pierce Morgan program, recently, he was asked his views on gay rights. He supported gay rights. He even appointed a few judges that turned out to be gay. Of course, they came out after their appointment. He also believed that marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman. I agree. Where is his stand on gay rights, he was asked. He did not believe that discrimination was right. He believed in equal rights. Peirce asked what his Mormon faith believed, that homosexuality was a sin? He told him he could talk to his church to get their view. He dodged the question and said his personal religious beliefs would not get in the way of his governance. That is crap, to me. I am molded by what I learned growing up in a small church in the south. How can it not get in his way? Pierce asked him, "In your opinion, is homosexuality a sin?" Romney's response, "nice try, a valid question but I am not going there." It seems to me that his answers would be determined by where or who he is talking to. If he is in Iowa he would be all for ethanol uses and if he were talking to some retirees from Florida he would be all for making Social Security solvent a priority. He's filthy rich and does not care about the middle class America that staffs his mansions.A typical Republican. The Democrats have their faults, too. I'll get into that, at a later date.
The most distasteful thing I read was a story he told of seeing his Dad marching with Martin Luther King. After some research it came out that was a lie. His response? "I meant they marched in the same state." A bald face lie. I know he has the tag of being a flip-flopper but to blatantly lie about his father marching with Dr. King, well, that does it for me. He does not care about me, anyway. I don't have enough money.
In closing, I think that with all his faults and flip-flops he will probably get the nomination. The decks are clearing. Bobby Jindal, at one time a star of the GOP blew it in one speech, killing his chances. Sarah Palin is hated by most Americans. Newt is almost out of money and by not hitting Romney back, slap for slap, his numbers have nose-dived. Ron Paul, enough said about him. If by the end of the year and people are back to work with a strong economy, Obama will be re-elected. The republicans are in sad, sad shape. The party of No! Lord help us, all. theblogmeister

Now Watch This

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:03:00 +0000

I had a comment from a reader that did not like what I was writing about Ron Paul. He gave me a you tube video to watch and I watched it with an open mind. After watching the video I scrolled down and found another video about Dr. Paul. Okay, now it is your turn to watch a video. The url is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z17hBEZpu2E&feature=youtube_gdata_player. This is the reason you, or anyone, should not even consider putting this man in the most powerful position in the world. He is absolutely terryfying. I am not writing anymore on Dr. Paul. I'll go down the line and choose the next nominee. Good or bad, because I am not party affiliated, you will get my thoughts and my beliefs on what I think. Please, watch this video. You will see this man in a totally different light. Thanks, theblogmeister

What The Hell Is Wrong With You People?

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 04:46:00 +0000

The more I read my Ipad, usually The Huntington Post, or CNN, the more I ask myself the very question in my title. "What the hell is wrong with you people?" Do you want to know my definition of 'you people?' First of all, anyone that even considers Ron Paul could make President. It blows me away that he is even in the running to win Iowa. Do you actually do any research, at all, when you say you are voting for him? He has sponsored well over 400 bills in the house. Do you know how many of those bills actually made it to the floor for a vote? One, Uno. That's it. That makes me wonder what the hell he is doing. He has no friends in the house. He does not attend any congressional dinners. All of that is part of his job. If he cannot do his job as a congressman how the hell do you think he could handle the demands of Commander-in-chief? Well, the first thing this moron will do is call all military stationed overseas home. That sounds great but look at the price it will cost us in the long run. Iran will take Iraq, North Korea will jump on South Korea. What will we do? Ask Ron. Legalizing drugs will be his next executive order. Pot would not be so bad, but he wants to legalize heroin, cocaine, some wicked shit. I think he must be on the stuff. I wish one of you Paul supporters would leave me a comment with a rational explanation as to why you are voting for him. Truth be known, I wish he would get the nomination, then Obama would definitely win another term. I do not understand why all the hate for Obama. Are we becoming a country of racist? I watched the world news with Diane Sawyer this evening and in 2012 millions of jobs are being added. By the time the election is here our economy will be back pre Bush days. Obama got our troops out of Iraq the responsible way, not like Bush getting us in it the irresponsible way. Don't forget what our country was like when Obama started. Two wars, a deficit like none other in the history of America, thanks to Bush/Cheney. The crooks thriving on wall street, like Cheney. Having to work with a party that said no to everything Obama tried, even some ideas that were the GOP's and just because he brought them up they said no. The GOP is THE PARTY OF NO! Now that things are starting to look up you want to put in place of Obama something like you see in Iowa? Just like I said, "What the hell is wrong with you people?" theblogmeister

Michele Bachman Doesn't Believe in Santa

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:12:00 +0000

Why do I say this, you ask? I have just learned that Santa is a closet homosexual. I know, I couldn't believe it, either. But, it's true. I secretly staked out Mrs. Bachman's husband's clinic and found that Santa has been seeing the psychologist for weeks. We all know that the clinic run by the Bachman's is a clinic that has a mission to turn all gays straight by trying to convince the patient that being gay is a sin that can be fixed. While hiding in the bushes, waiting for Santa to come out, not the closet, rather the clinic, I noticed that I could not feel my toes. I began to question myself what is more important, having toes or speaking with Santa and get the scoop that would sink Bachman in her Presidential bid for the GOP nomination. I decided that she did not have a snowball chance in Iowa to get the GOP nomination, so, I hurried to my car, cranked the heat on high, and thawed my toes out. I looked up with wandering eyes and what appeared, Santa coming out of the clinic, or closet, I don't know. I'm sitting in my car with shoes off and do not have the time to put them on and catch Santa before he gets in his sleigh. I blew my chance to get the scoop of a lifetime. All because of numb toes. That's just my luck. As I was beating myself up for missing the scoop of a lifetime out came Mr. Bachman running to try and stop Santa before Rudolph kicked it in high gear. I couldn't tell what he was screaming. I had the heater on high. All I heard was a few words, forgiven, something about a key fits a lock, God loves you. If my damn toes wasn't about to fall off I could have gotten most of what Mr. Bachman was yelling at Santa. I heard Santa yell, "Leave me alone, and God loves me, too." Just think if I could have gotten that scoop. Bachman would have some splainin to do. theblogmeister

After 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

noreply@blogger.com (theblogmeister) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:25:00 +0000

"I never thought I'd see the day," Air Force Intelligence Officer Ginger Wallace told the Washington Blade earlier this month. Col. Wallace entered the military in 1990 and for the vast majority of her career, she knew that because of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell, she could be fired at any time, just for being a lesbian.
Times have changed. As Colonel Wallace prepares to deploy to Afghanistan in the spring, she can serve the country she loves, without hiding who she loves. In fact, when she was recently promoted, she invited her partner Kathy to pin her new rank to her jacket in a ceremony at the Pentagon-- without risking her career or face an investigation.
It's been exactly one year since President Obama signed the law repealing 'Don;t Ask, Don't Tell,' and when we hear stories like Col. Wallace's, we are reminded that when we work together, we have the power to change our country for the better. When it came time to end discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military, President Obama showed true leadership, the Pentagon completed a thorough and transparent planning process, a broad coalition of advocates made their voices heard, and Congress acted. Because they did, lesbian and gay service members will no longer be required to live a lie in order to help protect our country.
In his remarks at the signing ceremony one year ago, President Obama spoke about one of his trips to Afghanistan. "A young woman in uniform was shaking my hand," he said, "and other people were taking pictures. She pulled me into a hug and whispered in my ear,' 'Get Don't Ask, Don't Tell' done.' And I said to her,'I promise, I will.' " To me that story encapsulates President Obama's compassion, conviction, and determination.
Over the past year, the Pentagon implemented the new law, yet again demonstrating the professionalism and class that we have come to expect from the worlds finest fighting force. Because they did so, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell was completely repealed in September, and we keep hearing inspiring stories. For example, there's Captain Michael Phelps who blogged about bringing his date Brandon to this years Marine Corps Birthday Ball. And on the White House website, there are many stories of what that day means.
As President Obama has said,"Change has never been quick. Change has never been simple, or without controversy." But when we see pictures of Col. Wallace and Kathy, or Capt. Smith and Brandon, we know what change looks like.
Of course, ending DADT is only part of an ongoing commitment to keep our nation safe and staying true to our values. This month President Obama brought the war in Iraq to a close. AS our troops come home, we are determined to serve all our veterans as well as they have served our great country.
And today, we are reminded that when we work together to make our country more perfect, change is not just possible, but inevitable. On this historic anniversary, we look forward to continuing to work with all those who love our country, and seek a more perfect union. Valarie Jarrett of the Huffington Post theblogmeister