The Political Junkie

Stay Informed, Vote, or Shut-Up!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---End of Transmission---

Pictures and Video of Boston Marathon Bombing Suspects.

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

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

SUSPECT #1:

SUSPECT #2:

VIDEO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study Suggests Suicide Linked to Gun Ownership and Conservative Politics.

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

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

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

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

---End of Transmission---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marijuana Legalization Hasn't Destroyed Colorado.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---End of Transmission---

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

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

---End of Transmission---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---End of Transmission---

Gerrymandering Is to Blame for Dysfunctional Congress.

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

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

---End of Transmission---

Romney and Republicans Still Insulting Latinos and African-Americans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---End of Transmission---

Republicans Hypocritical on FEMA, Federal Aid and Relief.

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

GOP Politicians Said This About FEMA

Romney Jeep Ad in Ohio a Desperate Lie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---End of Transmission---

Romney Misleads on Importance of FEMA and Federal Disaster Relief.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---End of Transmission---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---End of Transmission---

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

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

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

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

---End of Transmission---

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

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

---End of Transmission---

Romney Endorses GOP Candidate Who Said that Pregnancy After Rape is "Something God Intended."

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:20:00 +0000

CBS NEWS (link): In a Tuesday night debate with his Democratic rival and a Libertarian candidate for one of Indiana's U.S. Senate seats, Republican candidate Richard Mourdock suggested that pregnancies resulting from rape are "something that God intended to happen," despite the "horrible situation" from which they derived.

Mitt Romney, (who has his own inconsistencies on abortion) has endorsed this radical guy, Mourdock. He made a campaign ad endorsing Richard Mourdock:

Now that Mourdock has insulted women who have survived rape, women in general and their male allies, you'd think Mitt Romney would cut his ties to Mourdock and make clear he doesn't agree. Yet, as is usual with Romney, that's not exactly what happened. "Multiple-Choice" Romney has said he disagrees with the comment but still stands by Richard Mourdock in his bid for the Senate seat from Indiana. That's not a profile in courage, Mitt.

If you disagree with Mourdock's radical statement that pregnancies from rape are what "god intended" then you should no longer continue supporting this man's campaign--period. Actions speak louder than words, especially with you, Mitt, and your track-record of half-truths and slick talk. You can't expect people to believe, or respect you, when you say you disagree with his remarks but stick with supporting his campaign. If you are so against this type of radicalism then why continue having your name, and campaign, connected to this clown?

---End of Transmission---

Romney Endorses President Obama in Foreign Policy Debate.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:17:00 +0000

The presidential debate on foreign policy last night in Florida felt like a Mitt Romney endorsement of President Obama!! Romney is so untested, inconsistent and inexperienced on foreign policy that about all he could do last night was agree with the president's positions on just about everything:

Romney has been touting ridiculous ideas on international policy, such as saying Russia is our number one foe despite the Cold War having been over for 20 years!! As well as saying he wouldn't "move heaven and earth" to get Osama bin Laden. Since he doesn't have any foreign policy experience, he has been trying to mimic George W. Bush. But, seeing that's "Bushism" isn't popular, Romney is now agreeing with Obama, which shows that President Obama is the leader and Romney the follower. That's the kind of inconsistency that we've come to expect from Romney, and it's not presidential. President Obama seized on that weakness, as seen in this clip

Unfortunately your browser does not support IFrames.

Watch More News Videos at ABC | 2012 Presidential Election | Entertainment & Celebrity News

Given that Romney is essentially void of good ideas on foreign policy, it's no wonder all he could do was say to President Obama, "Yeah, me too."

---End of Transmission---

Obama Won the National Security Debate.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:00:00 +0000

President Obama has not wavered when it comes to protecting America. He led the fight to al-Qaeda by having Osama bin Laden killed. But he didn't stop there:

Yet many of al Qaeda's leaders have been captured or killed. According to CNN's Peter Bergen, 5 of the most important players in al Qaeda under president Obama.

At the same time, Obama ended the disastrous Iraq War that had foolishly distracted the Republican Party from Osama bin Laden. Yet, the Republicans want us to believe that Obama is the incompetent one on foreign policy?

As for Libya, President Obama helped overthrow a decades long dictator, Gaddafi by providing the Libyan resistance fighters air-support during the revolution. In doing so, the Libyan people cheered for America!! That isn't something you see everyday in the Islamic world. So, how do Republicans react? By crassly using the death of a U.S. ambassador in Libya to attack Obama on foreign policy.
The initial reports out of Libya were confusing because it was a fluid situation and you don't make conclusions before all the evidence had been gathered. However, before the full facts could settle into a report, Mitt Romney was on t.v. trying to blame President Obama for Ambassador Stevens's death!! That's playing cynical politics while our ambassador to Libya's body wasn't even cold. Besides, how is any president supposed to prevent every terrorist attack in the world? If you're going to blame President Obama for the Libyan embassy attacks then Bush should get the blame for missing 9/11.

Presidents aren't "gods" that can prevent every terrorist attack in the world. The truth is that no president can micro-manage every embassy and consulate in the world to stop any and all attacks. It should also say something that when the Libya attacks happened, the people of Libya took to the streets to protest the terrorists. They expressed apologies to America for the death of our ambassador and showed support for America. That's the kind of support in the Islamic world that had been lacking under President Bush. That's progress that can't be ignored. The Libyan embassy attack was tragic but the full story out of Libya is that while there are still pockets of terrorists left after the Libyan revolution, most Libyans are very supportive of America.

As for Iran, the most recent sanctions instituted by President Obama, and other world leaders, have been very effective. According The Guardian, these sanctions have been "unprecedented." "Now, as sanctions compound the country's economic woes, that red line appears to be disappearing, with many officials, finding their leader's old rhetoric untenable, publicly expressing concerns about the country's crumbling economy."

The Obama White House has been able to get a diverse group of countries to join hands and unite to block Iran's nuclear intentions. They have enacted some of the toughest economic sanctions against Iran in history. It sounds like Mitt Romney's answer to Iran is another war in the Middle-East and I don't think that's a wise policy, fiscally or politically. Iran is nearly twice the size of Iraq with a much better and bigger military. This is especially reckless talk from Romney given he has no foreign policy experience. It should remind us of another Republican president who talked the same way about possible military intervention. Need I remind you of President Bush talking tough about having to invade Iraq? And how did that go? Not so well.

In respect to the Syrian civil war, President Obama knows that it is more complicated than Libya where America was able to intervene with air support. Syria has complicated alliances and arming the militias means some weapons getting into the hands of Islamic extremists. In addition, Iran is very close to Syria and could retaliate if America gets too aggressive. Romney has criticized Obama for supposedly not doing enough on Syria. But, what would Romney do that Obama hasn't already? Essentially, the only option left that Obama hasn't pursued is to declare war on Syria. Is Romney calling for a war with Syria, in addition to armed intervention in Iran? This loose talk about war is reckless.

President Obama has been a cool, calm and steady hand in facing a complicated, diverse world. He has been an American president that the world respects, so do we really want to go back to George W. Bush style foreign policy? Because Romney's opinions on war and the Middle-East aren't much different than those of Bush.

---End of Transmission---

Gas Prices Going Down Help Economy.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:18:00 +0000

Recently there have been a lot of good indicators for the economy. Unemployment has dropped to 7.8% from a high of 10%. According to The Guardian, 7.8% is the lowest unemployment rate since President Obama won the presidency. In addition, the housing market is improving. U.S. News Money reports that the number of new homes being built is at its highest rate since 2008. The lowest level since Obama became president.

Adding to these positive gains is the news that gas prices are going down. The price of fuel has dropped 8 cents in just over 2 weeks!! That's a big drop in prices for just a 2 week period!! This is a great help for for those having to pay for heating oil during the upcoming winter. Gas prices going down are like a tax cut for employees commuting to work and for stay-at-home spouses driving a lot to get the kids to school and run errands.

It's getting harder and harder for Mitt Romney to say the economy is getting worse, not better without sounding like a kill-joy rooting for bad economic news for political gain.

---End of Transmission---

Amendment 64 to Legalize Marijuana Has Supporters from Both Democrats and Republicans.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:31:00 +0000

The U.S. State of Colorado is about to legalize marijuana and herald the beginning of the end on marijuana propaganda and prohibition. A recent SurveyUSA poll asked likely Colorado voters about Amendment 64. The poll revealed a five-point advantage coming out in favor of the bill at 48 percent to 43 percent [...].

TPJ: Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it isn't working with marijuana. Especially considering that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. Unlike alcohol, marijuana does not cause overdoses. According to Carrie Click with The Aspen Business Journal, Amendment 64 is popular with Democrats and Republicans alike:

The economic factors of passing the bill are compelling. According to the Associated Press, analysts project that that tax revenue could generate somewhere between $5 million and $22 million a year in the state. According to economist Christopher Stiffler at the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, the number could be as large as $60 million dollars added to state coffers by 2017. The study also concludes that a windfall of $12 million in instant savings will occur in the year following legalization because of reduced legal, court and prison costs. Annual savings (compared to a pre-legalization year’s budget) will approach nearly $40 million once the legal system adjusts to the decrease in crimes eliminated by the bill’s passage.

An estimated $24 million in new tax revenue generated from excise taxes on wholesalers will go directly to the Colorado Public School Capital Construction Assistance Fund, which will help create over 372 new jobs from school construction projects [...] With those numbers, it’s no surprise Amendment 64 is receiving support from both sides of the aisle in Colorado. Many members of both parties have abandoned the former partisan stances and gotten behind the bill out of its pure economic upside.

TPJ: The key here is jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs in a new industry in everything from farmers to accountants. Colorado could be the next Sonoma Valley (California Wine Country). But, as usual, the DEA is resisting a new, educated, policy on marijuana. According to journalist Carrie Click:

According to the US Federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the legalization of marijuana still violates federal law. If passage of these measures takes place in any or all states, some warn that it will lead to a "constitutional showdown,” as federal law maintaining the illegality of the drug still preempts state law.

TPJ: The DEA worries about a "constitutional showdown" between state and federal law on marijuana legality? That's exactly the kind of fear-mongering that I'd expect from a losing side, desperate for maintaining a failed system. Maybe it's time to have a "constitutional showdown" and force the federal government to take a fresh look at the futility of fighting marijuana. I think a lot of Americans believe the old, entrenched ways of Washington deserve a shake-up. The status quo (on many issues) just isn't working anymore. I think the problem is with the government, not the people. The people are waking up and realizing that they've been lied to about marijuana, and are tired of otherwise law abiding people going to jail simply for using a substance, pot, that doesn't cause overdoses, unlike alcohol!! No more wasting money and lives!!

---End of Transmission---

Who Supports Women Most, Obama or Romney?

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 18:56:00 +0000

Women are becoming the key voting bloc in America, and since women are a deciding factor in elections, I thought it would be informative to compare the records of both candidates. Mitt Romney claims that he'll help women get jobs and advance in the workplace. Yet, when he became Governor of Massachusetts, Romney didn't place women in political positions until a women's rights group prodded him by providing the governor with lists of qualified women. As David S. Bernstein reports:

Not a true story. What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected....Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.

To make matters worse for Mitt Romney, the women he did hire weren't usually in top, leadership positions. Bernstein goes on to write that even though then-Governor Romney appointed women to 42% of the cabinet positions, Romney supposedly only appointed women to "head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women."

Women need to ask themselves, if Romney can't be honest on the hiring of women then how can he be trusted to stand for women on anything? Especially when Mitt Romney has had a sketchy record on women's rights. He was pro-choice when he wanted to win over women voters in Massachusetts, but then when he wanted the Republican nomination for president Romney swung over to being pro-life. In 2007, Mitt Romney said, "I agree with Senator Thompson, which is we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states. I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period. That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted."

Romney then doubled-down on those abortion comments recently, "I would love the Supreme Court to say, ‘Let’s send this back to the states,’” he said. “Rather than having a federal mandate through Roe v. Wade, let the states again consider this issue state by state.” “But I’m pro-life, that’s my view. I believe there is a sanctity of human life,” Romney added.

President Obama, on the other hand, not only supports women's right to reproductive rights but working toward pay equity. In addition to making it easier for women to find recourse for discrimination in the workplace. This can be seen in the very first bill he signed into law when he became president, the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Where does Romney stand on this important advancement? As is typical with him, Romney's position is both opposition and support. First he opposed it and now he says he wouldn't repeal it!! But, if he won't repeal it then why won't he just come out in full support of the fair pay act? This from Obama deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter:

It’s troubling that Mitt Romney’s campaign still can’t get their answer straight on where Mitt Romney stands on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which gives women greater ability to enforce in court their right to fair pay. From the six seconds of silence six months ago when they were first asked this question, to a top aide’s walk back of a statement last night that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have supported the law when it was passed, the Romney campaign is making what should be an easy answer extremely complicated. But, for millions of women, there is nothing complicated about it. As the President said last night, this is not just a women’s issue, it’s a family issue and an economic issue. Three weeks out from an election, the American people need a clear and final answer on whether Mitt Romney would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law – and whether or not he would sign the Paycheck Fairness Act that President Obama has been fighting for.

The unemployment rate is coming down, so how can Mitt Romney say things are getting worse? It's more than Romney has done to help employ women. So, why can't Mitt Romney be truthful and trustworthy with women? What is he hiding and why can't he give women a straight answer? Maybe because Romney doesn't want women to know his true intentions.

---End of Transmission---

Housing Market Improving, Less Vacant Homes. New Homes Constructed at Highest Level Since 2008.

noreply@blogger.com (Handsome B. Wonderful) — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 06:01:00 +0000

U.S. News Money (link): Throughout the country, homes that once sat on the market for years are now in demand. According to a survey conducted by housing research firm Metrostudy that covers 65 percent of the country, there are less than 30,000 vacant new homes on the market. In the pre-bubble housing market, there were typically 100,000. Last month, builders constructed new homes at the fastest pace since 2008.

The housing market improving is almost as big a deal as a lowering unemployment rate because it means people are building equity again. In addition, it spurs growth in construction, which has long been a reliable ingredient to the strength of the American economy. This fuels job growth for hard-working Americans who might not have a college degree but are just as hard workers (if not more so).

Yet there is one segment of the population standing in the way of a furthering improvement to the housing market:

RAW STORY (link): US President Barack Obama urged Congress Saturday to pass a mortgage plan to help troubled homeowners refinance their loans and save $3,000 a year. “It’s a plan that we know will work,” the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address. “It has the support of independent, non-partisan economists and leaders across the housing industry,” he added.

The Republican Senators and Representatives in Congress opposed it. President Obama said, “It’s a no-brainer that should have passed easily.” It seems that Republicans are so blinded by their hatred for Obama that they are willing to stifle the health of the American economy to defeat him. It all to tell you everything you need to know about a party, Republicans, who would be willing to risk the detriment of the economy, just to win an election.

---End of Transmission---