tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37845613157742308862024-03-18T22:19:44.193-05:00DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS for SALEUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2261125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-12055360760592605742013-01-20T10:34:00.003-06:002013-01-20T10:34:15.915-06:00Hard Right Stance on Gun Control is Fueled by Fear<div>
<b><i>NRA, GOA, gun lobby, conservative talk radio/sites, Fox News pundits are all pushing Fear of the Federal Government as the reason to oppose any reasonable gun control</i></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
This morning this blog is back up -- for how long no one knows or even if anyone else can see the blog since it was taken down after a complaint on Terms of Service which made no sense, but then when you consider the subjects I have been covering with being anti-NRA, anti-RNC, and anti-Congress, it makes sense. I have started posting on <a href="http://voicesfromtheheartland.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Voices from the Heartland</a> here on blogspot during this time DfS has been down. BTW I am contemplating taking Voices to a paid website in the near future.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We have a class in this Country of hard right who only believe Freedom of Speech belongs to them starting with the conservative talk radio pundits led by Rush Limbaugh and Hannity, most of the hosts on Fox News Channel (not counting Shepherd Smith or Greta), conservative websites/bloggers and paid harassers who go from site to site posting their hard right conservative talking points. Truth doesn't matter to these people, it is the hard right conservative narrative. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When it came out that Reagan had pushed for the Assault Weapons Ban, he became a RINO. The same thing happened to Justice Scalia when he said that the 2nd amendment didn't give you the right to own military style weapons and that the militia of the Constitution is the National Guard/Reserves of today so now he is a RINO. In 2004 when the Assault Weapons Ban was going to be allowed to expire by Republicans, President Bush couldn't fathom why they were allowing it to expire so he became a RINO and most likely why he had so much trouble with the Republican Congress when he was re-elected as he made the NRA mad. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This graphic was linked on Twitter to show exactly what they are talking about when they say Assault Weapon according to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/even-defining-assault-weapons-is-complicated.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0" target="_blank">NY Times</a>:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BA5rwW7CcAEeg0a.jpg:large" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BA5rwW7CcAEeg0a.jpg:large" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="tweet-row" style="text-align: left;">
<span class="tweet-user-name"><a class="tweet-screen-name user-profile-link js-action-profile-name" data-user-id="33256849" href="https://twitter.com/CSGV" title="CSGV">CSGV</a> <span class="tweet-full-name">CSGV</span> </span> <small class="time"><a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink js-nav" href="https://twitter.com/CSGV/status/292289504348368897" title="9:17 AM - 18 Jan 13"><span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-long-form="true" data-time="1358522223">18 Jan</span></a> </small> </div>
<div class="tweet-row">
<div class="tweet-text js-tweet-text" style="text-align: left;">
Outstanding new graphic from the <a class="twitter-atreply pretty-link" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/nytimes"><s>@</s><b>nytimes</b></a>: "What Makes An Assault Weapon." RT this widely. <a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23p2&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>p2</b></a> <a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23tcot&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>tcot</b></a> <a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23guncontrol&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>guncontrol</b></a> <a class="twitter-timeline-link" data-pre-embedded="true" dir="ltr" href="http://t.co/ZjbHRECX">pic.twitter.com/ZjbHRECX</a></div>
<div class="tweet-text js-tweet-text" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="tweet-text js-tweet-text" style="text-align: left;">
The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/even-defining-assault-weapons-is-complicated.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0" target="_blank">NY Times posted this picture with their article </a>which I have excerpted the last few paragraphs below to show the term Assault Weapons originated:</div>
<div class="tweet-text js-tweet-text" style="text-align: left;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Assault rifle” was first used to describe a military weapon, the Sturmgewehr, produced by the Germans in World War II. The Sturmgewehr — literally “storm rifle,” a name chosen by Adolf Hitler — was capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic fire. It was the progenitor for many modern military rifles. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But the term “assault rifle” was expanded and broadened when gun manufacturers began to sell firearms modeled after the new military rifles to civilians. In 1984, Guns & Ammo advertised a book called “Assault Firearms,” which it said was “full of the hottest hardware available today.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The popularly held idea that the term ‘assault weapon’ originated with antigun activists, media or politicians is wrong,” Mr. Peterson wrote. “The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.” </blockquote>
Yesterday's "Gun Appreciation Day" originally co-sponsored by a white supremacist group turned out to be comedy with five people shot at gun shows due to 'accidents' when people shot a loaded gun and five people got hurt. You couldn't take this stuff up that a gun dealer pointed a gun he had purchased, shot, and it hit someone as there was a bullet left in the gun after the clip had been removed. Abject stupidity and yet these are the people who want to own military style guns with large clips. Don't get the large clips except the talk show circuit and websites have convinced some people who are not the brightest bulb in the pack that the Federal Government is going to send the military to attack them.<br />
<br />
Why are the hard right conservatives led by Senator Rand Paul trying to stir up these people who believe what they say and could be a threat to our military and police officers around the Country if they perceive they are doing something that bothers them. We are not dealing with common sense, we are dealing with people who do cling to their guns and try to be all macho like they are some kind of a gunslinger. Do they have the temperament that if someone made fun of them open carrying a gun, they might take it out and shoot. Common sense people don't carry guns to go shopping.<br />
<br />
Then there is the NRA an organization who has lost touch with being an organization that supports hunting, gun safety, and reasonable laws. They are now hard right money makers as the lobbying arm of the gun/ammo manufacturers. Today someone will pay $4,000 for a gun that is worth about $600 because of the increased demand for guns since this Country elected its first black president, the gun manufacturers have increased the price for guns knowing those who scare easily into thinking this Country is going socialist or communist because of President Obama are going to pay the price. Some of these people would live on beans to buy a gun. When you see someone post that their guns are before family because it is the only way to protect them, you realize you most likely are not dealing with someone with a full deck.<br />
<br />
What is the scary part is that these people consider themselves patriots and the federal government is the enemy which brings us back to Ruby Ridge, David Koresh and Waco, and then their shining triumph according to Timothy McVeigh when he planned to kill as many federal workers as he could with bombing the federal Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. He and his partner(s) not only killed federal workers but also young children who were in the day care center. Yet even today there are some loons in the militia who consider what McVeigh did as the right thing to do. <br />
<br />
The worst part is that members of Congress just not conservative talk shows and websites are touting the President is not legitimate, the Federal Government is coming to take your guns, new laws are Unconstitutional as the President has no right to sign Executive Orders on gun control and the list goes on and on all in order to stir up the hard right so they can line their pockets with money from the NRA, GOA, and gun/ammo manufacturers who support their campaigns/sites. After all, both sides have to do four hours of fundraising every afternoon and don't want to shut down the NRA/Gun Lobby dollars and that includes Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) who is balking at tougher filibuster requirements who is in the hip pocket of the gun lobby so it cuts both ways.<br />
<br />
Now will see how long this stays up!<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-32372161241510003182013-01-16T15:44:00.001-06:002013-01-16T15:54:04.119-06:00NRA is Extremist and Hypocritical on Gun Free School Zones<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/16/1456051/after-columbine-shooting-nra-embraced-gun-safety-measures-it-now-opposes/">After Columbine Shooting, NRA Supported Gun Free School Zones It Now Opposes</a><br />
<h1>
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">How many issues on 23 executive orders did the NRA support when they were a rational organization and not extreme. The <a href="http://t.co/3KDInQiI" target="_blank">CEO who profits from Bushmaster </a>sits on the NRA board -- conflict of interest? You betcha</span></h1>
<h1>
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Mother Jones now has the paperwork on how the NRA elects its board -- guess you could say that regular NRA members have very little say:</span></span></h1>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nra%20report%20of%20the%20nominating%20committee/" target="_blank">NRA Report of the Nominating Committee</a>, Sep 2011</span></span></blockquote>
After reading the 23 Executive Orders, I have a hard time coming up with where the lunatics think that Obama is taking away gun runs or doing a power grab. There is obviously a reading comprehension problem from the hard right. Worse then that are the Republicans calling for the President's impeachment who obviously don't have a leg to stand on and frankly are so far over the top that constitutional lawyers are scratching their heads on the news shows (except Fox) wondering where they came up with their sentiments after reading the 23 EO's.<br />
<br />
Some recent Tweets from Twitter:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="24843232" href="https://twitter.com/HunterDK"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id">Hunter</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name"><s>@</s><b>HunterDK</b></span></a>NRA tries to get scientists fired for researching gun safety. That's how much they don't give shit about your kids. <a class="twitter-timeline-link" data-expanded-url="http://nbcnews.to/W7efyu" dir="ltr" href="http://t.co/NIAbh3lA" target="_blank" title="http://nbcnews.to/W7efyu"><span class="invisible">http://</span><span class="js-display-url">nbcnews.to/W7efyu</span></a> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="178486716" href="https://twitter.com/AntiWacko"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id">Richard Avalon</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name"><s>@</s><b>AntiWacko</b></span></a>RT <a class="twitter-atreply pretty-link" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/JLRy"><s>@</s><b>JLRy</b></a>: RT <a class="twitter-atreply pretty-link" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/TheNewDeal"><s>@</s><b>TheNewDeal</b></a>: Liberal Extremist Ronald Reagan Helped Pass the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban <a class="twitter-timeline-link" data-expanded-url="http://bit.ly/URHGoF" dir="ltr" href="http://t.co/ECtz3GVr" target="_blank" title="http://bit.ly/URHGoF"><span class="invisible">http://</span><span class="js-display-url">bit.ly/URHGoF</span><span class="invisible"></span><span class="tco-ellipsis"><span class="invisible"> </span></span></a> Rt <a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NRA&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>NRA</b></a> <a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23p2&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>p2</b></a> <a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23tcot&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>tcot</b></a> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="55376380" href="https://twitter.com/MattGertz"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id">Matthew Gertz</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name"><s>@</s><b>MattGertz</b></span></a><br />
If you liked the NRA's 30-second video attacking Obama's daughters, you'll love the 4 minute version <a class="twitter-timeline-link" data-expanded-url="http://mm4a.org/WewC5n" dir="ltr" href="http://t.co/iAIWmCwN" target="_blank" title="http://mm4a.org/WewC5n"><span class="invisible">http://</span><span class="js-display-url">mm4a.org/WewC5n</span><span class="invisible"></span><span class="tco-ellipsis"><span class="invisible"> </span></span></a> </blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="849169945" href="https://twitter.com/SayNoToGOP"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id">Dump The GOP In 2014</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name"><s>@</s><b>SayNoToGOP</b></span></a>Larry Ward, Gun Appreciation Day Founder, Says Armed African Americans Could've Prevented Slavery ... <a class="twitter-timeline-link" data-expanded-url="http://huff.to/ZDhNKc" dir="ltr" href="http://t.co/klqm8rbD" target="_blank" title="http://huff.to/ZDhNKc"><span class="invisible">http://</span><span class="js-display-url">huff.to/ZDhNKc</span><span class="invisible"></span><span class="tco-ellipsis"><span class="invisible"> </span></span></a> via <a class="twitter-atreply pretty-link" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/blackvoices"><s>@</s><b>BlackVoices</b></a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="55355654" href="https://twitter.com/thinkprogress"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id">ThinkProgress</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name"><s>@</s><b>thinkprogress</b></span></a>The NRA would have supported some of Obama's gun proposals...in 1999. <a class="twitter-timeline-link" data-expanded-url="http://thkpr.gs/W0p5ti" dir="ltr" href="http://t.co/Igevb0LB" target="_blank" title="http://thkpr.gs/W0p5ti"><span class="invisible">http://</span><span class="js-display-url">thkpr.gs/W0p5ti</span><span class="invisible"></span><span class="tco-ellipsis"><span class="invisible"> </span></span></a> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="836562037" href="https://twitter.com/doctorjoe56"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id">Joe Spataro, MD</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name"><s>@</s><b>doctorjoe56</b></span></a>“<a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23House&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>House</b></a> can pass comp <a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23gun&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>gun</b></a> legislation now & have <a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Boehner&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>Boehner</b></a> shape it, or wait 2yrs4 SPEAKER <a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Pelosi&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>Pelosi</b></a> to do it.”~<a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23JoeScarborough&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>JoeScarborough</b></a> <a class="twitter-atreply pretty-link" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/JMGruver"><s>@</s><b>JMGruver</b></a> <a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23p2&src=hash"><s>#</s><b>p2</b></a></blockquote>
Then there is the usual trash from Limbaugh:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/Rush%20Limbaugh%20To%20Caller:%20%22You%20Know%20How%20To%20Stop%20Abortion?%20Require%20That%20Each%20One%20Occur%20With%20A%20Gun%22" target="_blank">Rush Limbaugh To Caller: "You Know How To Stop Abortion? Require That Each One Occur With A Gun"</a></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/01/16/rush-limbaugh-responds-to-universal-checks-on-g/192279"><span style="font-size: small;">Rush Limbaugh Responds To Universal Checks On Gun Sales: "We Still Have Not Had A Background Check On Barack Obama"</span></a></blockquote>
Hope the people from the districts that some of these Republicans represent who are calling for impeachment are very proud of their Representative. If it was me, I would be furious. Don't think that the GOP in the House in 2014 are going to have to worry about who to elect as Speaker. They keep up their extremists attitudes and they will be saying Madam Speaker again to Nancy Pelosi. If they think only Democrats are disgusted, they have their heads buried in the sand if they think Republicans are not even madder at how they make the Republican Party look today. <br />
<br />
I can see President Obama right now telling the NRA supporters in Congress to "Please Proceed" because they are on the losing end of this fight as the American people are speaking out even in Red States, in cities, in rural America, and all across the Country because we have had with business as usual on gun control and the contention gun control will not save lives. How do they know? If you look at Sandy Hook, the shooter would not have access to assault rifles or large magazines and his doctor would have been required to turn him in for mental health issues.<br />
<br />
This is only a small example of Republicans who have gone over the top along with Sen Rand Paul who is not pictured here but says this about Obama: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2013/January/Sen-Paul-on-Gun-Control-Order-Obama-is-Not-King/">Speaking with CBN News</a>, Paul remarked, “I’m against having a king. I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress — that’s someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.”</blockquote>
Way to go Kentucky with electing Rand Paul to the US Senate to go with McConnell. Disgusting bunch of Republicans who don't have a clue how mad they have made longtime Republicans.<br />
<blockquote>
Regardless of the facts, the movement to impeach Obama over these executive actions is spreading from fringe conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and taking hold among lawmakers and Republican activists. Here are five people calling for Obama’s impeachment:<br />
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX)<br />
<img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1458871" height="328" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Steve-Stockman-e1358361856217.jpg" title="" width="580" /><br />
Stockman <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/14/1446711/republican-congressman-impeach-obama-gun-safety/">plans to introduce</a> articles of impeachment, calling Obama’s anti-gun violence efforts “an existential threat to this nation.”<br />
Rep. Trey Radel (R-FL)<br />
<center>
<img alt="" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-1459931" height="324" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Screen-shot-2013-01-16-at-3.27.51-PM.png" title="" width="582" /></center>
<br />
Following Stockman’s lead is Florida Congressman Trey Radel, who said impeachment <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/16/1455911/trey-radel-impeachment/">“should be on the table”</a> and falsely claimed that Obama wants an executive order to “ban guns.”<br />
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)<br />
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/110303_louie_gohmert_ap_605.jpg"><img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1458971" height="314" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/110303_louie_gohmert_ap_605-e1358362085874.jpg" title="" width="580" /></a> Gohmert, a Tea Party favorite who recently <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/04/1399921/louie-gohmert-hammers/">claimed</a> an assault weapons ban would have to include hammers, <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gohmert-gun-control-impeachment/2013/01/16/id/471665">charged</a> that the president’s action is “illegal” and grounds for impeachment. “The American Revolution was all about fighting such a monarchy — and that is not what the Constitution anticipates. It’s not something a Constitutional president would do,” Gohmert lamented.<br />
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese (R)<br />
<img alt="" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-1459971" height="324" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Screen-shot-2013-01-16-at-3.30.53-PM.png" title="" width="586" /><br />
Edwin Meese, former Reagan Attorney General and current Heritage Foundation official, is also taking up the call for impeachment. In an <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/meese-obama-guns-impeachable/2013/01/14/id/471412">interview</a> with Newsmax, Meese claimed Obama may have “really tried to override the Constitution itself.” Congress, he said, would have to take action, “perhaps even to the point of impeachment.”<br />
Larry Pratt<br />
<img alt="" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-1459941" height="323" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Screen-shot-2013-01-16-at-3.29.05-PM.png" title="" width="575" /><br />
The head of Gun Owners for America <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/larry-pratt-demands-impeachment-obama-pagan-gun-laws">urged</a> Republican lawmakers to stop being “spectators while the country is being torn apart” and impeach Obama. Pratt also attacked all gun safety laws as “the most pagan of paganism” because they assume guns and other “inanimate objects as possessing their own will.”</blockquote>
Welcome to the new Republican Party where no one in power will speak up to these guys preferring to stay silent. Time to vote them out in 2014!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-16995426059470818872013-01-16T13:14:00.001-06:002013-01-16T13:21:38.318-06:00President Obama's Common Sense "Now is the Time Plan" for Gun Control in the United States<br />
I went to the White House website to read the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf" target="_blank">President's plan</a>, Now is the Time, and understand even less how Rubio and others on the hard right can be making their comments against the President and this plan. Here are the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/16/read_president_obama_s_new_proposed_executive_orders_and_legislation_on.html" target="_blank">23 executive orders</a> from the White House:<br />
<br />
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to
make relevant data available to the federal background check
system.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states
from making information available to the background check
system.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the
background check system.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals
prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping
through the cracks. </blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a
full background check on an individual before returning a seized
gun.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers
providing guidance on how to run background checks for private
sellers.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer
Product Safety Commission).</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law
enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal
investigations.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen
guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
11. Nominate an ATF director.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials
with proper training for active shooter situations.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and
prosecute gun crime. </blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for
Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun
violence.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the
availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge
the private sector to develop innovative technologies</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors
asking their patients about guns in their homes.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no
federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement
authorities.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource
officers.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of
worship and institutions of higher education.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope
of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and
parity requirements within ACA exchanges.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity
regulations.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote>
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and
Duncan on mental health. </blockquote>
</div>
<br />
Will someone tell me how these common sense Executive Orders are taking guns away from owners and affecting their 2nd amendment rights? Makes anyone attacking the President on these Executive Orders look really stupid. It would behoove members of Congress not to rush out with dumb statements before reading what was proposed.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rubio-obamas-gun-plan-wouldnt-have-stopped-newtown" target="_blank">Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said on Wednesday</a> that President Obama's newly announced plan to reform the nation's gun laws would not have stopped the school shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn., accusing the administration of "targeting" gun owners.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Nothing the President is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook," Rubio said in a statement. "President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence. Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill."</blockquote>
He is being laughed at in the media because the 23 executive orders signed by the President are all common sense and supported by the vast majority of Americans. How does Rubio and others like Rick Perry know that gun control measures wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook massacre? Maybe the shooter couldn't have bought the large magazines or his mother not been able to purchase assault weapons or his doctor would have turned him in for mental health issues. <br />
<br />
If one life is saved by these measures, then that is one more person who owes their life to President Obama for being willing to stand up to the Gun Lobby and members of Congress who are in their hip pocket. American people in overwhelming numbers support the President and the new gun control measures that should be passed into law including a lot of gun owners. <br />
<br />
President Reagan signed the original Assault Weapons Ban yet he was a supporter of the 2nd amendment. President George W Bush never understood why the Assault Weapons Ban was being allowed to expire and he lived on a ranch. Yet the attacks are all against Obama which seems to fit the mantra that anything Obama proposes some GOP in Congress are automatically against without even bother to read what is proposed. Their attacks on the President are turning off large amounts of Republicans now including <a href="http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/16/scarborough-nra-is-its-own-worst-enemy/" target="_blank">Joe Scarborough</a> who had a lot to say on his Morning Joe show about gun control and how the NRA is its own worst enemy.<br />
<br />
Sandy Hook massacre of first graders has brought people out of the woodwork who stayed silent in the past on gun control now demanding something be done and done now. The largest amount of Americans ever (over 80%) support comprehensive gun background checks and want the gun show loophole closed. Before Sandy Hook it was around 50%. Times have changed but the NRA with Wayne LaPierre have not recognized that fundamental shift by the American people. NBC has some of the details on this shift in their article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16544842-obama-unveils-sweeping-new-gun-control-proposals?lite" target="_blank">While some of Obama's long-expected proposals</a> - like universal background checks - garner overwhelming public support, the outlawing of certain types of weapons may be less of a slam dunk for lawmakers eager to appease constituents. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A recent poll from the Pew Research Center showed that a majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- back a ban on "assault-style weapons," with 40 percent saying they don't approve of a ban. But a partisan breakdown shows that only about four in ten Republicans support such restrictions, compared to a broad majority of Democrats. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Democrats in Congress have already voiced doubts about the feasibility of the president's most ambitious proposals. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We're not going to get an outright ban" on assault weapons, Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York bluntly said yesterday.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[Senate Majority Leader] Reid has said he doesn't know whether he has the votes (for an assault weapons ban)," she added. "There's heavy lifting, so are we going to waste time on heavy lifting? Or are we going to try to work on doing something that could actually get passed?"</blockquote>
Supporters are more optimistic about background checks and magazine restrictions.<br />
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy announced Wednesday that his panel will hold its first hearing on issues relating to gun violence on Jan. 30. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In his remarks Wednesday, Obama anticipated opponents' reactions to his proposals.<br />
"This will be difficult," he said. "There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty. Not because that's true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves, and behind the scenes they will do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That pushback began earlier in the week, culminating in high tempers on both sides Tuesday night after the National Rifle Association released an ad criticizing Obama's dismissal of the gun lobby's proposal to increase armed security in schools. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" a narrator asks in the short ad. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Related: <a href="http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16545930-white-house-calls-nra-repugnant-cowardly-for-invoking-presidents-children-in-ad?lite">White House calls NRA 'repugnant,' 'cowardly' for invoking president's children in ad</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The ad prompted outcry from observers who said the First Family should be off limits for such advertisements, while NRA backers say their focus is on school safety rather than on the president's daughters themselves. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Whoever thinks the ad is about President Obama's daughters are missing the point completely or they're trying to change the subject," said spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "This ad is about keeping our children safe. And the president said he was skeptical about the NRA proposal to put policemen in all schools in this country. Yet he and his family are beneficiaries of multiple law enforcement officers surrounding them 24 hours a day." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
White House spokesman Jay Carney shot back that the ad is "cowardly." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," he said. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the President's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly."</blockquote>
When I saw the NRA ad using the President's children last night, I knew the NRA was on the losing side. I know people who were finally tipped over the edge and are now calling for gun control because that ad woke them up to the fact the NRA went from an organization promoting gun safety to an extremist organization under LaPierre who puts profits for gun/ammo manufacturers over safety of Americans.<br />
<br />
The Democrat NRA members better think twice before they say they cannot pass an Assault Weapons Ban in Congress because their constituents may have other ideas. (Update) I would recommend that Democrats look closely at NY Democrat Carolyn McCarthy after her statement and push even harder for AWB. She lost her husband to gun violence but doesn't believe Congress will act:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We're not going to get an outright ban" on assault weapons</blockquote>
Why not? Is she saying that members of Congress will not vote how their constituents want but how the NRA wants them to vote? If that is the case, they need booted out of Congress. The arrogance of members of Congress on both sides who think they don't have to listen to constituents (all of them) but do have to listen to lobbyists don't have a clue how mad the American people are becoming. When <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/63-of-gop-voters-think-congressional-republicans-are-out-of-touch/" target="_blank">63% of Republicans</a> think their members of Congress are out touch, it says that those safe GOP seats may not be so safe from Republican voters.<br />
<br />
The biggest question of the day is whether Congress will listen to all of us who vote? Will Republicans in Congress side with the hard right and NRA or with the American people to save lives? The jury is out on what they will do.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-14979198856923890232013-01-15T15:13:00.001-06:002013-01-15T15:13:15.819-06:00Senator Schumer (D-NY) Announces His Support for Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense; Neocon Heads Explode<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<h2>
Hagel vs. Neocons</h2>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.truthdig.com/images/cartoonuploads/hagelneocons_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="241" src="http://www.truthdig.com/images/cartoonuploads/hagelneocons_500.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold; text-align: left;">Posted on Jan 13, 2013, </span><span style="font-size: xx-small; font-weight: bold; text-align: left;">Steve Sack, Cagle Cartoons, The Minneapolis Star Tribune </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
This morning after hearing that Senator Chuck Schumer, D-NY, was now supporting former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, I figured it was more than both had the same first name. I did see that in a comment making fun of the neocons. After the Schumer announcement, decided it was time to look into some background of why the Republican neocons had gone so far overboard with their attacks on Hagel making some Senators like McCain, Graham, Ayotte, and Corker look like fools. <br />
<br />
How much are some of these Senators bought and paid for by the Defense industry who pushes neocons to do their bidding because with war comes big profits. That is why I thought this cartoon from Cagle Cartoons was perfect for this post today.<br />
<br />
Knew McCain was mad after <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/2008/09/19/chuck-hagel-slams-sarah-palin-its-a-stretch-to-say-shes-got-the-experience-to-be-president" title="Chuck Hagel slams Sarah Palin: "It's a stretch to say she's got the experience to be President"">Chuck Hagel slammed Sarah Palin: "It's a stretch to say she's got the experience to be President"</a>. Frankly that was one of the smarter things Hagel has said. He was 100% correct as it turned out. He also opposed the surge in Iraq which McCain wanted. Showed me then that Hagel was his own man and would put Country over Party.<br />
<br />
The question of this nomination has been "Why do neocons detest Hagel?" which I typed into my AOL search. Found this article from Barrie Dunsmore, a retired ABC News diplomatic correspondent. After reading his article, it made perfect sense:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://vtdigger.org/2013/01/13/dunsmore-why-the-neocons-dont-like-hagel/" rel="bookmark" style="font-size: medium;" title="Dunsmore: Why the neocons don’t like Hagel">Dunsmore: Why the neocons don’t like Hagel</a> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Editor’s note: This op-ed by retired ABC News diplomatic correspondent Barrie Dunsmore first aired on<a href="http://www.vpr.net/"> Vermont Public Radio</a>. All his columns can be found on his website,<a href="http://www.barriedunsmore.com/"> www.barriedunsmore.com</a>.</span></em> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></em><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Weeks before Chuck Hagel was announced as President Obama’s choice to run the Pentagon, a campaign against Hagel was launched by neoconservatives led by William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine. Kristol is not just any neo-conservative. His father was known as the godfather of the movement of intellectuals whowere once part of America’s Far Left — who in the 1960s began flipping to the Far Right over their disenchantment with American liberalism. Irving Kristol used to joke that a neoconservative was “a liberal who had been mugged by reality.”</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">One feature of neoconservatism is that it advocates an aggressive, hard-line foreign policy. Another, is that it is strongly pro-Israel and historically has had close ties with Israel’s current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Those two policy goals came together when neocons in George W. Bush’s administration pressed for the invasion of Iraq....</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">The opening shots of the campaign against Hagel were that he was not supportive of Israel. This past week Elliot Abrams, a noted neocon in the Reagan and Bush administrations, went so far as openly calling Hagel an anti-Semite. Abrams cited remarks Hagel once made, critical of the scare tactics of the “Jewish lobby” in Washington. Hagel now admits he should have said Israeli lobby because Christians, especially many evangelicals, are also strongly pro Israel.</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">As Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame put it this week, being critical of the current hard-line Israeli government, doesn’t make one an anti-Semite.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(snip)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Actually, earlier this week two top officials from the current Israeli government praised Hagel for his record of strong support for Israel. So what is going on here</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(snip) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">But I believe most Americans, including most American Jews, would find a negotiated outcome in Iran far more preferable than another Mideast War — a war most likely to be even more costly than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.</span></span></blockquote>
<h1>
</h1>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Excerpt: Read More at <a href="http://vtdigger.org/2013/01/13/dunsmore-why-the-neocons-dont-like-hagel/" target="_blank">VT Digger.com</a></span></span></blockquote>
How has the neocon short-sighted view of invading Iraq worked out to make the Middle East safer for Israel? IMHO the Middle East is in more turmoil then it has been in years. Have the neocons with their zeal for war and support of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu upset the balance in the Middle East? War isn't the answer to everything.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://vtdigger.org/2013/01/13/dunsmore-why-the-neocons-dont-like-hagel/" target="_blank">They</a> (Bush neocons) wanted to show the world that with the end of the Cold War, America was the top dog and would not hesitate to use force to protect or advance its interests. And the overthrow of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein would make the neighborhood safer for Israel. </blockquote>
The neocons received a huge blow to their chances of defeating Hagel for Secretary of Defense today with this announcement that Hagel had won over Key Democrats including Senator Schumer:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/15/1449231/hagel-schumer-boxer/">Hagel Wins Over Key Democrats In Defense Secretary Bid</a></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/author/hbrown/">Hayes Brown</a> on Jan 15, 2013 at 10:28 am </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — rumored to be a potential roadblock in the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, today <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/us/politics/schumer-says-hes-satisfied-with-hagel-on-mideast.html">announced his support</a> of Hagel’s bid — following a lengthy meeting between the two. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Schumer was thought by many to be a bellwether on whether coordinated attacks on Hagel’s stance on Iran and Israel by neoconservatives were having the desired effect. In the aftermath of a ninety minute meeting between the two on Monday, Schumer made clear that the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/01/09/chuck-schumers-hagel-problem/">smear tactics</a> of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin and others had not swayed his decision, announcing his support in a <a href="http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16525230-schumer-to-support-hagelr">prepared statement</a>: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation. <strong>I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him.</strong> [...] </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>I know some will question whether Senator Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post. But I don’t think so. </strong>Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago. His views are genuine, and reflect this new reality.</blockquote>
In his statement, Schumer also noted that Hagel provided assurances on his commitment to female and LGBT service members, another concern of several members of the Senate. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By announcing his support, Schumer joins Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/277157-sen-boxer-to-back-hagel-for-defense-post">firmly stating</a> their backing of Hagel in the coming confirmation fight. “After speaking extensively with Sen. Hagel by phone last week and after receiving a detailed written response to my questions late today, I will support Sen. Hagel’s nomination as secretary of Defense,” Boxer said in a statement.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Read More at <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/15/1449231/hagel-schumer-boxer/" target="_blank">Think Progress.org </a></blockquote>
<div class="post">
<div class="post-update">
<div class="timestamp">
</div>
Since President Obama announced Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense some of the dumbest comments have come out of Republican Senators against the nomination. One of my favorites was Senator Corker (R-TN) questioning Hagel's 'temperament' when you have John McCain in your caucus along with others which made me laugh. It only took Sen Corker (R-TN) a little over a week to be brought back on board the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/chuck-hagel-and-the-neocon-smear-machine/266499/%3Cbr%20/%3E" target="_blank">'smear campaign'</a> against Hagel being run by McCain and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for the neocons and big defense contractors who depend on wars to make a lot of money. The more conflicts the better for the Defense industry who pull the chains of Senators/Representatives when they want their way. In this case, Hagel would be one of their worst nightmares which makes him the perfect choice.
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/13/1440201/corker-hagel-temperamen/">GOP Senator Now Questions Hagel’s ‘Temperament’</a></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/author/rleber/">Rebecca Leber</a> on Jan 13, 2013 at 12:29 pm<br />
<br />
Former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel received <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/07/1409831/hagel-key-endorsements-powell-gates-feinstein-levin/">bipartisan support</a> after President Obama nominated him for Secretary of Defense last week. <b>Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who served with Hagel on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also praised him as someone he is <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jIeBvDlsxg4qSXrVTkZR88x1BF2A?docId=99f0b648734e45cb9369c8cb67b81de9">“very open to”</a> for the nomination: “Certainly his name coming forward is one I’m very open to. I had good relations with him while he was in the Senate.” (my bold)</b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But this Sunday, during an appearance on This Week, Corker echoed the criticism of the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/chuck-hagel-and-the-neocon-smear-machine/266499/%3Cbr%20/%3E">smear campaign</a> against Hagel, and raised vague concerns about his “temperament”:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (HOST): You had some positive things to say about Senator Hagel when his name was first floated. You said he had a good relations on the Senate foreign realtions committee. Do you see anything that should disqualify him fromt he Pentagon post? </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
CORKER: Well I think like a lot of people the hearings are going to have a huge effect on me [...] You know, I have a lot of questions about just this whole nuclear posture abuse. Those are things that haven’t been discussed yet. <strong>Obviously people have concerns about his stance towards Iran and Israel. But I think another thing, George, that’s going to come up is just his overall temperament, and is he suited to run a department or big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon.</strong> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong></strong>STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have questions about his temperament? </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
CORKER: <strong>I think there are a number of staffers who are coming forth no just talking about the way he has dealt with them. I certainly have quesitons about a lot of things. </strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div class="post">
You have a Senator (Corker) who supported Hagel before he was against him bringing up the temperament issue with no background except some anonymous staffers versus former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell, and former <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/01/11/169110294/ex-ambassador-crocker-supports-hagels-nomination">top U.S. ambassador</a> Ryan Crocker who have announced their support. Seems to me that the three heavy hitters trump Corker's comments he seemed to pick out of a hat provided by McCain and Graham.<br />
<br />
Then there is the usual puppet of McCain/Graham, Kelly Ayotte, who joined the criticism of Corker. Imagine that -- does she ever think for herself? Her Benghazi's attacks on the Secretary of State Clinton and UN Ambassador Rice were beyond disgusting and showed a lack of integrity as she followed along with anything McCain/Graham had to say without bothering to check facts. Speaking of McCain/Graham, what is up with Lindsey Graham? Is he that worried about his reelection that he comes out with McCain now making the strangest comments I never thought he would make. He has joined the hard right which is a shocker. The McCain puppet Ayotte is now promoting Iranian propaganda instead of Benghazi to oppose Chuck Hagel:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/13/1440101/gop-senator-promotes-irans-propaganda-to-oppose-chuck-hagel/" target="_blank">Senator Promotes Iranian Propaganda To Oppose Chuck Hagel</a></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/author/igor/">Igor Volsky</a> on Jan 13, 2013 at 9:49 am </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This morning, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Republican Senator and rising party star Kelly Ayotte (NH) cited Iranian propaganda in explaining her opposition to President Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I have not made up my mind,” Ayotte began, before warning that Hagel has not expressed sufficient commitment to using military force against Iran if it develops nuclear weapons. She then pointed to Iranian propaganda, noting that the country “reacted favorably” to his nomination:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
AYOTTE: <strong>Iran, this week, kind of reacted favorably somewhat. There were statements that were favorable to his nomination, in fact, they said they were hopeful that with his nomination, they hoped that we would change our policies</strong>. What I want to make sure is that Iran is actually not hopeful, but they are fearful as a result of our nominee from a Secretary of Defense perspective, because I think that will cause them to stop marching toward acquiring a nuclear weapon, not hope that we’ll change our policies, they need to change their policies.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
On Tuesday, the Iranians <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/us-iran-usahagel-idUSBRE9070DL20130108">responded</a> to the Hagel nomination and used it to take a backhanded slap at the United States, saying, “We hope there will be practical changes in American foreign policy and that Washington becomes respectful of the rights of nations.” Unfortunately, neo-conservatives — desperate to derail Hagel — <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/08/1416741/neocons-promote-iranian-propaganda-in-anti-hagel-campaign/">jumped on the propaganda</a> from Iran’s foreign ministry to make their case.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hagel has warned against the consequences of war with Iran, but has stated that his position is “<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/07/1400591/hagel-nominated/">fully consistent</a> with the policy of presidents for more than a decade of keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force, thereby increasing pressure on Iran while working toward a political solution.” As a senator, Hagel also voted in favor of several rounds of targeted sanctions against Iran including packages in <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02709:@@@L&summ2=m&">1998</a>, <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ178/pdf/PLAW-106publ178.pdf">2000</a>, and <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ293/pdf/PLAW-109publ293.pdf">2006</a>.</blockquote>
Now we have a United States Senator, Kelly Ayotte, using Iranian propaganda against the Hagel nomination which should give his nomination even more credence. Do you know how sad that is that a US Senator who was the NH Attorney General doesn't understand propaganda and how foreign countries use it to influence people like her? Iranians know if they praise the nomination, the neocons will go nuts, and they were right.<br />
<br />
Once again, Bloomberg News comes along with the background on what is driving the neocons to launch attacks on Chuck Hagel. Leave it to Al Hunt to give the facts you won't find from the mainstream media where some like to play it both ways sometimes missing the facts along the way. <br />
<br />
From Al Hunt,<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-13/neo-cons-exploit-hagel-nomination-to-refight-lost-wars.html" target="_blank"> Bloomberg News</a>:<br />
<div class="post">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">“This battle has not as much to do with Chuck Hagel or any comments he made
on Israel,” says Joseph Nye, a former top Defense Department official who
teaches at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. “This is about
re-litigating major changes in foreign policy.”</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a density="sparse" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/senator-lindsey-graham/">Senator Lindsey Graham</a>, a South Carolina Republican who has
supported most Obama administration Cabinet nominees, should have credibility
when he assails the choice of his former Senate colleague. “Chuck Hagel is out
of the mainstream,” Graham says, “on most issues regarding foreign policy.”</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Nonetheless, Graham and other critics, in particular the so-called
neo-conservatives who dominated Bush’s first term, obfuscate the central issues
with dubious, duplicitous charges.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Anti-Israel</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hagel is accused of being anti-Israel. “He would be the most antagonistic
secretary of defense toward Israel in our nation’s history,” Graham charges.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">More antagonistic than the third defense
secretary, George Catlett Marshall, who once told his commander in chief,
President <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/harry-truman/">Harry Truman</a>, that he’d vote against his re-election if the
U.S. recognized the state of Israel?</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hagel once carelessly referred to the “Jewish
lobby” to describe the powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington. That prompts
neo-cons such as <a density="sparse" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/elliott-abrams/">Elliott Abrams</a>, who served in foreign policy positions for
Presidents <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/ronald-reagan/">Ronald Reagan</a> and George W. Bush, to call him anti-Semitic,
an outlandish fabrication.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">In two Senate terms, Hagel voted for every measure
containing aid to Israel. He is a critic of some of Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin’s Netanyahu’s policies; so is President <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/">Barack
Obama</a>.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">(snip)</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">In contrast to Hagel -- or the president -- they
express few reservations about intervening in places such as Syria or carrying
out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear capacity. In the <a density="sparse" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/middle-east/">Middle
East</a>, they are unswervingly pro-Israel.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">These policies require an ability to simultaneously take action in multiple
trouble spots, which means a beefed-up Pentagon budget, and more forces and
weapons. </span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">(snip)</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">“They (Obama and Hagel) believe in a more efficient, as opposed to just a greater, use of
American power,” says Nye, who supports Hagel, with whom he served on the
Defense Policy Board.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">He sees the Nebraska Republican, out of sync with his own party today, as
emblematic of President Dwight Eisenhower’s foreign policy of the 1950s. “Ike
felt that forces of occupation in poor countries where they are not welcome are
losing propositions,” Nye says. (Eisenhower’s granddaughter has championed
Hagel’s nomination.)</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Graham’s charge that Hagel is “out of the
mainstream” is refuted by the nominee’s roster of supporters, including
prominent Republicans such as former Secretary of State <a density="sparse" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/colin-powell/">Colin
Powell</a>, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, former homeland
security chief <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/tom-ridge/">Tom Ridge</a> and former Defense Secretary Bob Gates. Hagel also
has the backing of leading Democrats, including former National Security Adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Secretary of State <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/madeleine-albright/">Madeleine
Albright</a> and top defense experts in the Senate, <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/jack-reed/">Jack Reed</a> of
Rhode Island and <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/carl-levin/">Carl Levin</a> of Michigan, along with more than a dozen former
top generals and prominent ambassadors, including six who served in Israel.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">The public, on issues ranging from the value of
the Iraq war to remaining in Afghanistan to the size of the <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/defense-budget/">defense
budget</a>, appears more in tune with Hagel than with the neo-cons. Israel has
strong support; an attack on Iran doesn’t.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">The nominee will be confirmed and a healthy debate over these matters might
show the public who is the more mainstream: Hagel or Graham. </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Excerpt: Read more at <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-13/neo-cons-exploit-hagel-nomination-to-refight-lost-wars.html" target="_blank">Bloomberg </a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
If you want more proof of the hypocrisy of some Republican Senators look no further then Graham's comments on the surge in Iraq. He doesn't have a problem with John Kerry as Secretary of State who also opposed the surge in Iraq like Hagel and others but he has a problem with Hagel for not following the party line? <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-13/neo-cons-exploit-hagel-nomination-to-refight-lost-wars.html" target="_blank">The Nebraska lawmaker’s</a> conversion to opponent of the <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/iraq-war/">Iraq war</a> rankles neo-cons, especially his criticism of the troop surge in 2007. “I’ll have a hard time supporting anybody to be secretary of defense who believes the surge was a foreign policy blunder,” Graham says.Yet Graham says he supports the nomination of Senator <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/john-kerry/">John Kerry</a> to be secretary of state. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Massachusetts Democrat opposed the surge, as did Republican senators such as <a density="sparse" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/susan-collins/">Susan Collins</a> of Maine and Norman Coleman of Minnesota, as well as Democrats such as <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/joe-biden/">Joe Biden</a> of Delaware, <a density="full" href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/hillary-clinton/">Hillary Clinton</a> of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.</blockquote>
This lends more credibility to what I am hearing that this anti-Hagel crusade is coming out not only the neocons but also out of the Defense industry who are afraid Hagel will start cutting the fraud, waste, and abuse that is rampant in the DoD. He knows where some of it is buried like in sole source contracts to major defense contractors. Chuck Hagel is not going to be bullied by US Senators like Graham or McCain or by defense contractors. IMHO necons are going to be on the outside looking in which is why they are attempting to derail the Hagel nomination. Halliburton may have to work to get contracts with Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.<br />
<br />
With the announcement by Chuck Shumer that he is supporting Hagel for SecDef, the nomination should have no trouble being approved by the Senate. Lindsey Graham would be smart not to put a hold on this nomination as <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2013/63_of_gop_voters_think_republicans_in_congress_out_of_touch" target="_blank">63% of Republicans</a> according to Rasmussen think Republicans in Congress are out of touch. That should send shock waves through the GOP, but today's GOP has gone so far hard right playing up to the Koch Brothers and other hard right groups, that those 63% of us don't matter. Maybe they will sing a different tune in 2014. <br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-81636010223858838382013-01-14T16:23:00.001-06:002013-01-14T16:23:05.871-06:00President Obama Chastises Rubio and the GOP, "We are Not a Deadbeat Nation!"Now we have a first term Senator Marco Rubio thinking he can say whatever he wants to the President and the Country and no one is going to strike back. He found out today that President Obama didn't like his<br />
'deadbeat nation' comments as they are untrue. In fact, I find Rubio's comments disgusting from a group of Republicans who don't want to raise taxes for any reason. This man was given all kinds of help during the years because he was Hispanic and now calls the Country a 'deadbeat nation' when it is the GOP who wants to shut down Government and not pay bills? <br />
<br />
When some of us supported Rubio for Senate, we thought we were supporting an honest man, but we were wrong. He is nothing more then a Tea Party puppet who has no core value system left saying only what it will take keep from being primaried which makes him a wimp in my book. He has lost my total respect along with other Republicans who have become part of the 'my way or no way' crowd bowing to the Koch Brothers Tea Party.<br />
<br />
Stand with President Obama in taking on Republicans on the debt ceiling. Some of the GOP comments out of the House are mind boggling showing a level of stupidity I cannot believe including <a href="http://www.blogger.com/GOP%20Rep%20Promotes%20Shutting%20Down%20The%20Government:%20It%E2%80%99s%20A%20%E2%80%98Good%20Thing%E2%80%99" target="_blank">Marsha Blackburn</a> putting shutting down Government on the table to teach Obama a lesson. Who elects these people to Congress? <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/14/deadbeat-nation.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet" target="_blank">'Deadbeat' Nation</a><span class="byline byline-style-a">by <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/michael-tomasky.html" property="foaf:publications" rel="author"> Michael Tomasky </a> </span> <time class="timestamp" datetime="2013-01-14T17:11:00.000Z" property="dc:created" pubdate="pubdate">Jan 14, 2013 12:11 PM EST</time> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It caught a lot of people's ears just now when Obama said, "We are not a deadbeat nation." What some may not know is that he's referring to Marco Rubio, who used the phrase in <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/01/06/rubio-rips-obama-america-becoming-deadbeat-nation">a Jan. 6 letter</a> to Obama. That letter is worth a quick review. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Rubio wrote: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As I wrote in The Wall Street Journal in March 2011, I will oppose a debt ceiling increase unless such an authorization is accompanied by a real plan to tackle our debt. Ideally, such a plan would feature both pro-growth elements and spending restraints, including fundamental tax reform, regulatory reform, meaningful cuts to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security and Medicare. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If we had done this in mid-2011 when we last debated the debt ceiling, we could have set America on a path to economic growth and prosperity. This would have led to more jobs and, in turn, to more duly employed taxpayers generating more growth-driven revenue to help us pay down our debt. Instead, you failed to lead, punted the tough decisions and, in doing so, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. It's a tragic reality but, on your watch, more and more people have come to believe that America is becoming a deadbeat nation inevitably heading toward a European-style debt crisis.</blockquote>
This of course is dishonest and silly. Note that, while Obama accepts both revenues and cuts, Rubio has no room for revenues. "Fundamental tax reform" means cutting taxes, just as "reform" to Social Security and Medicare means cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Also, I shudder to think what condition this economy would be in if we'd done this in mid-2011. Austerity hurts. I think most Republicans actually know this deep down, although it's not clear in Rubio's case how intelligent he is. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Anyway the phrase "deadbeat nation" is going to have a lot more resonance coming out of Obama's mouth than in Rubio's letter. He has managed to turn the phrase around on the GOP.</blockquote>
<center>
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0" height="270" id="flashObj" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=2093762873001&playerID=1140772469001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAAEDRq0~,qRcfDOX2mNtWW87VePrJiaFRXUo43tGn&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=2093762873001&playerID=1140772469001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAAEDRq0~,qRcfDOX2mNtWW87VePrJiaFRXUo43tGn&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="480" height="270" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object> </center>
<center>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Watch Obama make his "deadbeat nation" comments and issue a challenge to Congress. </span></center>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-4094662455072292882013-01-14T13:26:00.000-06:002013-01-14T13:26:05.121-06:00General Colin Powell on Meet the Press about Hagel, Racism, GOP <div>
Yesterday as I watched this interview with General Colin Powell I was taken back to the first time I heard him speak many years ago. He hasn't changed -- he still puts Country over Party and speaks his mind. The Republican Party should be reaching out to more individuals like Colin Powell not calling him names or dissing him for speaking the truth. Anyone saying that members of the Republican Party do not use racist language against minorities is not facing reality. Some of the crap that came out of former NH Governor Sununu one Romney's co-chairs or former AK Gov Palin was so far over the top of racist remarks that it left me speechless. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Would say the Republican Party has no place for those comments but calling people names has become a way of life with some of the hard right acting like only they can determine who is a Republican today. The attacks on Powell after his comments were to be expected but the vitrol has been way over the top. Today you cannot say anything against the GOP but they can say whatever they want against you. They are going to lose big in 2014 if the hard right keeps this up as a lot of us who have supported Colin Powell for years support him now and agree with him on the State of GOP. I even posted on Twitter that the day Colin Powell leaves the GOP is the day I follow him out the door. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This interview from Meet the Press shows General Powell to be honest, articulate, ethical, and a man who puts Country over Party which is a way of life for him. David Gregory on the hand hand is not even close to being like Tim Russert as a moderator and at times you had the feeling that Powell was talking way over his head and he wasn't comprehending. I would give Powell an A+ for his interview and for telling it like it is -- great to have someone not afraid to give facts even when they know it will irritate some. Truth has a way of winning in the end.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well worth the time to watch/listen to this interview with Colin Powell:<br />
<br /></div>
<center>
</center>
<center>
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0" height="245" id="msnbc4e994b" width="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=50448232&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc4e994b" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=50448232&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><div style="background: transparent; color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; margin-top: 5px; text-align: center; width: 420px;">
Visit NBCNews.com for <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; color: #5799DB !important; font-weight: normal !important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none !important;">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; color: #5799DB !important; font-weight: normal !important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; color: #5799DB !important; font-weight: normal !important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none !important;">news about the economy</a></div>
<div style="background-color: transparent; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; margin-top: 5px; text-align: left; width: 420px;">
<br /></div>
</center>
Overview of General Powell's comments:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is a Republican, is lashing out at a <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/colin-powell-republicans-using-racial-era-slave-terms-to-attack-obama/" target="_blank">“dark vein of intolerance”</a> in his own party, which he says is being created by people like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu who use racial code words and “slave terms” to attack President Barack Obama. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
During a Sunday interview, NBC’s David Gregory asked Powell why he continued to consider himself a Republican after supporting Obama and taking moderate policy positions.
“I think the Republican Party right now is having an identity problem, and I am still a Republican,” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Powell explained. “In recent years, there has been a significant shift to the right and we have seen what that shift has produced: two losing presidential campaigns.”
“When we see that in one more generation that the minorities of America — African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans — will be the majority of the country, you can’t go around saying, ‘We don’t want to have a solid immigration policy, we’re going to dismiss the 47 percent, we are going to make it hard for the minorities to vote,’ as they did in the last election.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“There is also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party,” he continued. “They still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see [Palin] saying that the president is ‘shucking and jiving,’ that’s a racial-era slave term. When I see [Sununu] after the president’s first debate, where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was ‘lazy’ — he didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well — he said he was lazy. Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans, but to those of use who are African Americans, the second word is ‘shiftless’ and there’s a third word that goes along with it.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Powell went on to slam Republicans for “the whole birther movement.”
“Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the party?” he wondered. “I think the party has to take a look at itself. It has to take a look at it’s responsibilities for health care, it has to take a look at immigration, it has to take a look at those less fortunate than us.”</blockquote>
General Powell used this interview to say what many of us who did vote for Obama and are Republican have been saying about some of the racist comments during the campaign against Obama by the Romney camp and his supporters. They are still doing it today without regard to facts as they listen to Rush, Hannity, Beck, and Fox News who are turning into pockets of hate in the media which frankly is getting scary. Sometimes they are dealing with irrational people who are not all there and could be set off like a match. Is this all for making money or do they really believe what they say which is even more frightening?<br />
<br />
President Obama was elected by over 5M more votes but you would never know it from listening to those House Republicans who still think they are in charge of everything in the Government including today talking about shutting down Government is an option. Tell that to my mortgage company if the Civil Service Retirement check doesn't arrive. Today's House Republicans are controlled by the hard right and it shows in votes like on Hurricane Sandy where they voted against funds but those same GOP Reps voted for funding of natural disasters in their home states. They don't care at all about people only their bottom line and make sure they don't face a challenge in the primary. They have no backbones and continue to put Party over Country as they bow to the likes of the Koch Brothers, Club for Growth, and other hard right. Bunch of wimps with no backbone which I have stated before but if the shoe fits wear it.<br />
<br />
Now there is a new group, "No Labels" which has been co-founded by Republican Mark McKinnon with help from former UT Governor Jon Huntsman and former WVA Governor and current Senate Democrat Joe Manchin who has been a proponent of putting Country over Party. On the Morning Joe show from this morning which is posted below, Manchin showed his shock and frustration of how little the parties work together in the Senate. Scarborough and Huntsman talked about being conservatives at one time but not today because of the shift to the hard right. Their comments about Colin Powell are correct. Well worth the time to see what this group "No Labels" is advocating:<br />
<br />
<center>
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0" height="245" id="msnbc861121" width="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=50455993&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc861121" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=50455993&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><div style="background: transparent; color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; margin-top: 5px; text-align: center; width: 420px;">
Visit NBCNews.com for <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; color: #5799DB !important; font-weight: normal !important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none !important;">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; color: #5799DB !important; font-weight: normal !important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; color: #5799DB !important; font-weight: normal !important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none !important;">news about the economy</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</center>
From the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/lawmakers-joining-no-labels-problem-solving-group-amid-dc-gridlock/2013/01/14/71798920-5e24-11e2-8acb-ab5cb77e95c8_story.html" target="_blank">Washington Pos</a>t comes these details on the relaunched group "No Labels" with Manchin/Huntsman as co-chairs:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
NEW YORK — Fiscal cliffs and debt ceiling fights are out. Problem-solving is in.<br />Members of Congress, governors and mayors from across the political spectrum joined more than 1,000 political activists Monday under the No Labels banner, calling for a series of reforms in Congress to address fed up voters and dysfunctional politics. Only weeks after a polarizing election and big fight in Congress over taxes and spending, they said Washington needs a new attitude. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
“There’s a huge mistrust back there. There’s a feeling that we all don’t want to do something that is constructive, the only way we’re forced to act is with these manmade crises,” said Rep. Janice Hahn, D-Calif. “That’s no way to govern the country.” </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The gathering reflected a push from lawmakers in both parties to claim the political middle as voters increasingly view government as bitter and paralyzed. It came ahead of grappling in Congress over raising the nation’s debt ceiling, which is expected to be reached in February, along with fights over delayed cuts to defense and domestic programs and the need for a new spending plan to prevent a government shutdown. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Digging in over debt, Republicans in Congress have demanded spending cuts in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling but President Barack Obama has said he won’t negotiate, raising the possibility of another showdown. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
About a dozen members of Congress, wearing orange No Labels lapel pins, joined with West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a Republican who unsuccessfully sought his party’s presidential nomination last year, to decry a poisonous atmosphere in Washington. Organizers said they hoped to attract about 70 members of Congress from across the political spectrum to agree to meet regularly and try to work with each other. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
“The dysfunction of Congress makes our own nation dysfunctional,” said Huntsman, who was joined on stage by Manchin under an orange banner emblazoned with the words, “Problem Solvers.” Huntsman and Manchin, who worked together as governors, each heaped praise on each other in an appearance that almost looked like the makings of a presidential ticket.<br />Organizers said presidential politics is not in the offing here, pointing instead to a number of reforms to make government function more properly. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Excerpt: Read More at the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/lawmakers-joining-no-labels-problem-solving-group-amid-dc-gridlock/2013/01/14/71798920-5e24-11e2-8acb-ab5cb77e95c8_story.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a></blockquote>
Can you see Republicans in the House buying into these changes recommended by "No Labels" group? I know I cannot see most of the obstructionist/stubborn GOP House Members agreeing to these five simple remedies. Heaven forbid they have to work a five-day week! Personally like the part of not getting paid without a budget which also affects the Democrats in the Senate.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Require Congress to work five days a week instead of the typical late Monday-Thursday schedule</li>
<li>Demand an annual address to Congress on the fiscal condition of the nation </li>
<li>Withhold congressional pay if lawmakers fail to pass a budget</li>
<li>Force an up-or-down vote on presidential appointments within 90 days of a nomination</li>
<li>Change to the rules for filibuster in the Senate that allow the minority party to stall the process on bills and nominations that have fewer than 60 votes.</li>
</ul>
<div>
The House GOP last year was the worst for taking lengthy vacations I have ever seen while failing to do their job. If the Congress does not enact these reasonable changes, then it is time to vote them out in 2014 and elect some people to Congress who understand they represent all the people of their district or state not just partisans. Have to admit that Republicans in the House/Senate have taken it to a new low. Thought Democrats were bad over the years with one-party rule in Congress but they were novices to what we are seeing today out of a lot of Republicans in Congress who truly are bought and paid for by major donors like the Kochs and use insider information leading to their millionaire status and votes in favor of what the lobbyist who tip them off want. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Many GOP today have no qualms of putting Party over Country so not to get primaried. Time to send them to the unemployment line starting with the group talking about shutting down Government which means not paying the bills they rung up and putting it on the backs of the people who work or are retired from the Government along with seniors. Send them to the unemployment line in 2014 and then stop the benefits because they are fired by the American people not laid off.</div>
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-5626450492383461962013-01-12T14:39:00.000-06:002013-01-12T15:01:50.300-06:00Why are Conservative Pundits/Websites Inciting Violence with Lies on Gun Control?<b>UPDATE - 3:13 p.m., 1/12/13:</b> Looks like we were not the only ones questioning the comments of Yeager about going out shooting people if gun control was passed according to <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/11/state-suspends-gun-permit-for-ceo-who-said-he-would-start-killing-people-over-gun-control/" target="_blank">Raw Story</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The CEO of a weapons and tactical training company has had his gun permit suspended by the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security after he published a video on YouTube in which he threatened to “start killing people” if President Obama pushes forward with increased gun control, reported <a href="http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20566009/dept-of-safety-suspends-handgun-permit-of-local-man-after-gun-control-rage-video">News Channel 5</a>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
James Yeager, who heads the Tennessee-based company Tactical Response, issued a video Thursday in which he said, “I was mad when I said it” and “probably allowed my mouth to overrun my logic” but does not retract his statements. He admits he cut his controversial video by eliminating the part where he says he will “start killing people.” He claims he does not “condone anybody doing anything rash” or “committing any kind of felonies, up to and including aggravated assaults and murders, unless its necessary. Right now, it’s not necessary.”</blockquote>
Could this be the beginning of sanity and common sense returning to the discussion of gun control?<br />
<br />
<br />
*******<br />
On the weekend of the President's Inauguration and the celebration of Martin Luther King, along comes the hard right gun extremist with their "Gun Appreciation Day" which could not be more inappropriate, but it shows how the statement 'clinging to guns' is appropriate. The hard right is going to celebrate "Gun Appreciation Day" on January 19th while some of them are calling for a revolution if there are any changes to gun laws? NRA at work?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“<a href="http://southwhitehall.patch.com/articles/gun-owners-expected-to-rally-for-jan-19-gun-appreciation-day" target="_blank">The Obama administration</a> has shown that it is more than willing to trample the Constitution to impose its dictates upon the American people,” said Gun Appreciation Day chairman Larry Ward in a press release. (My Note: Is 'dictates' a code word from the hard right?)</blockquote>
Some of these people believe they have the right to own and use any type of gun or firearm including having a tank or bazooka in their backyard. How do I know? Been in heated discussions with them for years on sites and even in person here in Oklahoma at a GOP meeting. Some on a website I used to belong wanted to set up machine guns on the border and gun down anyone coming across which even was too much for the owner of the site who took down the thread -- afraid of law enforcement was my guess. <br />
<br />
I imagine the gun toting hard right will be up early on the 19th to celebrate "Gun Appreciation Day" and probably shoot off a few shots into the air. Never figured out shooting bullets into the air to celebrate because what goes up, come down. I wouldn't be caught outside on New Year's Eve for any reason at midnight and neither would my dog.<br />
<br />
The language of revolution that we are hearing out of talk show hosts like Hannity and others is mind boggling:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/01/11/hannity-says-states-may-secede-if-radicalized-a/192198" target="_blank">Hannity Says States May Secede</a> If "Radicalized, Abusive Federal Government" Continues On Its Path </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hannity: "If [Secession] Is So Radical, Then Read The Declaration Of Independence. It's A Radical Document"</blockquote>
A little background is in order on secession which Hannity seems to have missed:<br />
<br />
<br />
Why all the revolutionary language talk when the Supreme Court ruled with a <a href="http://bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/nick-smith/secession-not-likely-to-succeed/article_d3b3dcfc-3017-11e2-a95e-0019bb2963f4.html" target="_blank">majority opinion in an 1869</a> U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Texas v. White, to consider. The ruling in essence declared that a state can’t secede. following the Civil War that states cannot secede from the United States.<br />
<br />
Found this article from the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/In%20the%20wake%20of%20President%20Obama's%20reelection,%20residents%20in%20a%20host%20of%20states%20have%20expressed%20a%20desire%20to%20%22secede%22%20from%20the%20United%20States.%20%20%20You%20can%20find%20petitions%20for%20the%20idea%20on%20the%20White%20House's%20website.%20%20%20%20The%20concept%20crops%20up%20after%20most%20U.S.%20elections%20%E2%80%94%20you'll%20recall%20some%20Vermonters%20asked%20to%20secede%20after%20President%20Bush's%20reelection%20in%202004.%20%20But%20can%20states%20actually%20secede?%20%20Not%20without%20a%20fight.%20%20And%20we%20all%20know%20how%20that%20ended.%20%20%20Read%20more:%20http://www.businessinsider.com/no-you-cannot-secede-from-the-united-states-2012-11#ixzz2Hn6Wk3vd" target="_blank">Business Insider</a> very interesting on ability of states to secede:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the wake of President Obama's reelection, residents in a host of states have expressed a desire to "secede" from the United States.<br />
You can find petitions for the idea <a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions/all/0/2/4">on the White House's website</a>.<br />
The concept crops up after most U.S. elections — you'll recall <a href="http://www.uvm.edu/~fbryan/secession.pdf">some Vermonters asked to secede</a> after President Bush's reelection in 2004.<br />
But can states actually secede?<br />
Not without a fight.<br />
And we all know how that ended. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(snip)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Are there any <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/no-you-cannot-secede-from-the-united-states-2012-11#ixzz2Hn5ok4on" target="_blank">modern examples of states attempting to forcefully ignore federal law</a>? Say, failing to implement school <a class="itxtnewhook itxthook" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/no-you-cannot-secede-from-the-united-states-2012-11#" id="itxthook1" rel="nofollow" style="background-image: none; border: 0px transparent; display: inline; font-size: 16px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: initial;"><span class="itxtrst itxtrstspan itxtnowrap" id="itxthook1p"><span class="itxtrst itxtrstspan itxtnowrap itxtnewhookspan" id="itxthook1w" style="border-color: transparent transparent rgb(0, 204, 0); border-style: none none solid; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; color: #009900; padding: 0px 0px 1px !important; text-decoration: underline !important;">integration</span><img class="itxtrst itxtrstimg itxthookicon" id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" style="margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px 0px 0px 4px !important; vertical-align: baseline !important;" /></span></a>? Arkansas tried that in 1957, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0925.html">and failed</a>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What about Texas, which <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-secession-2012-11">according to legend retains its own special secession clause</a>? Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase settled that question <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White">all the way back in 1869</a>:</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through <a class="itxtnewhook itxthook" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/no-you-cannot-secede-from-the-united-states-2012-11#" id="itxthook2" rel="nofollow" style="background-image: none; border: 0px transparent; display: inline; font-size: 16px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: initial;"><span class="itxtrst itxtrstspan itxtnowrap" id="itxthook2p"><span class="itxtrst itxtrstspan itxtnowrap itxtnewhookspan" id="itxthook2w" style="border-color: transparent transparent rgb(0, 204, 0); border-style: none none solid; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; color: #009900; padding: 0px 0px 1px !important; text-decoration: underline !important;">revolution</span><img class="itxtrst itxtrstimg itxthookicon" id="itxthook2icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" style="margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px 0px 0px 4px !important; vertical-align: baseline !important;" /></span></a> or through consent of the States.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
The White House shot down these petitions to secede this week according to <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57563647-10391739/wh-shoots-down-secession-petitions/" target="_blank">CBS</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The White House politely shot down the secession petitions circulating on the White House petition website late Friday, dashing the hopes of malcontents who have submitted petitions to allow their states to withdraw from the union in the wake of President Obama's reelection last November. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Democracy can be noisy and controversial. And that's a good thing," wrote Jon Carson, director of the White House's Office of Public Engagement. "Free and open debate is what makes this country work...But as much as we value a healthy debate, we don't let that debate tear us apart." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Carson offered the would-be secessionists a history lesson, explaining that the Constitution guarantees "the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot - a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
He also invoked the sad history of the Civil War as a cautionary tale for those who would so casually seek a repeat of our bloodiest conflict, writing, "More than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"So let's be clear," Carson wrote, "No one disputes that our country faces big challenges, and the recent election followed a vigorous debate about how they should be addressed."<br />
"We will need to work together - and hear from one another - in order to find the best way to move forward."</blockquote>
<br />
<!--pagebreak--> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
People like Hannity are inflaming the hard right who by all accounts have some people who wouldn't think twice of taking to the streets with armed insurrection. He is feeding that fear among some unbalanced people who frankly are scary to regular citizens of both parties. Talk about unbalanced, here is one for you from none other than the NRA's Wayne LaPierre:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/11/nras-wayne-lapierre-used-right-wing-medias-nazi/192199" target="_blank">NRA's Wayne LaPierre Used Right-Wing Media's Nazi Comparison</a> To Warn Of "Mass Executions Of Gun Owners" </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Conservatives in media have been <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/10/they-went-there-right-wing-media-invoke-nazi-pa/192161">quick to draw comparisons</a> between the Obama administration's reported proposals to crack down on gun violence and the actions of Adolf Hitler to suggest that President Obama will engage in firearm confiscation. These <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/">historically inaccurate</a> comparisons owe part of their genesis to the National Rifle Association, which has compared proposals to regulate firearms to orders during the Holocaust. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In his book, <em>America Disarmed: Inside the U.N. & Obama's Scheme to Destroy the Second Amendment</em>, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre likened the United Nations Small Arms and Light Weapons Destruction Day, held on July 9, 2001, to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels' order that books authored by Jews be publicly burned.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
LaPierre then suggested that the burning of guns could "help set the stage for mass executions of gun owners" just as Goebbels' order precipitated the mass killing of Jews. </blockquote>
My first take was that LaPierre is psycho but then a friend said "crazy like a fox" and on a second look, she is probably right. He is a lobbyist for the manufacturers of guns and ammo at $1M a year so what better way to sell more weapons and ammo then play the Joseph Goebbel's card along with just like Hitler and Nazi Germany, the Federal Government is coming to take your guns. What a load of Bravo Sierra when you can equate, enforcing background checks on all gun/ammo sales with taking your guns. Now that is a reach and a flat out lie. <br />
<br />
If the gun show here today at the Fairgrounds is any indication, plenty of gun/ammo sales are being transacted with no background checks or I was told even a verification of ID. That is freaky! Why is the NRA opposed to background checks of any guns bought at gun shows? Right now private owners can sell with no ID/background checks. That gun show loophole needs closed like yesterday.<br />
<br />
The New York Times' Charles M. Blow gives more information on the <i>Revolutionary Language</i> being used in the United States today. Why all the hate rhetoric? Is it because the Republican white southern males lost another election to a black for President? That is the way it seems as southern Senators like Lindsey Graham and now Jeff Sessions don't like anyone that Obama nominates for his cabinet with Graham's attacks on Hagel for DoD and now Sessions attacks on Lew for Treasury Secretary. What is going on with the southern white males who are against anything that Obama is for? <br />
<br />
When President George W Bush was nominating people to be in his cabinet, Democrats were told by some of the same people to sit down and shut up as the President has a right to nominate who he wants including the wife of the Majority Leader at the time Mitch McConnell. The word went out that you don't filibuster cabinet appointees -- now with the shoe is on the other foot, the GOP won't hesitate to filibuster. The word Hypocrites comes to mind.<br />
<br />
This article from the NY Times says it all about all the rhetoric wanting people to take to the streets and my biggest question is why advocating this is not being a traitor?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<nyt_headline type=" " version="1.0"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/opinion/revolutionary-language.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0" target="_blank">Revolutionary Language</a></nyt_headline> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By <span itemprop="author" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">CHARLES M. BLOW</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span itemprop="author" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">P</span><span style="font-weight: normal;">ublished: January 11, 2013</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">Listen closely. </span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">That sound you hear is the sound of a cultural paranoia by people who have lost their grip on the reins of power, and on reality, and who fear the worst is coming.<br /> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">And they are preparing for it, whatever it may be — a war, a revolution, an apocalypse.<br /> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">These extremists make sensible, reasonable gun control hard to discuss, let alone achieve in this country, because they skew the conversations away from common-sense solutions on which both rational gun owners and non-gun owners can agree.<br /> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">These people, a vocal minority, have extreme fears — gun confiscation, widespread civil instability, a tyrannical government — from which they are preparing to defend themselves with arsenals of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition.<br /> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">If you pay attention to the right-wing’s rhetoric, you can hear a string of code words that feed the fears of these people and paralyze progress.<br /> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">A collection of conservative groups have declared Jan. 19, during the weekend celebrating President Obama’s inauguration and Martin Luther King’s Birthday, as Gun Appreciation Day. </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(snip) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Andrew P. Napolitano, a Fox News analyst, said in a <a href="http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/open-thread/judge-napolitano-wants-to-know-2/">video</a> posted Thursday on the network’s GretaWire blog: “Here’s the dirty little secret about the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment was not written in order to protect your right to shoot deer, it was written to protect your right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government. How about chewing on that one.”</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">He went even further in a <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/">piece</a> in The Washington Times, saying that the Second Amendment “protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Who are Napolitano’s tyrants here? Is this government takeover theoretical, imminent, in progress or a fait accompli?</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">(snip)</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">As the Southern Poverty Law Center said in a Spring 2012 <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/the-year-in-hate-and-extremism">report</a>, the number of so-called patriot groups surged after Barack Obama was first elected president.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">“The swelling of the Patriot movement since that time has been astounding,” the report said. “From 149 groups in 2008, the number of Patriot organizations skyrocketed to 512 in 2009, shot up again in 2010 to 824, and then,<a href="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/active-patriot-groups-in-the-united-states"> last year, jumped to 1,274</a>.”</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">(According to the center, “Generally, Patriot groups <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/active-patriot-groups-in-the-united-states">define themselves</a> as opposed to the ‘New World Order,’ engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines.”)</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The center also <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/patriot-movememnt">points out</a>: “Fears of impending gun control or weapons confiscations, either by the government or international agencies, also run rampant in antigovernment circles. As a result, many antigovernment activists believe that being well armed is a must. The militia movement engages in paramilitary training aimed at protecting citizens from this feared impending government crackdown.”</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">That’s why it is both shocking and predictable that James Yeager, the C.E.O. of a Tennessee company that trains civilians in weapons and tactical skills, posted a video online Wednesday (since removed but still viewable at <a href="http://s.tt/1yf6S">rawstory.com</a>) saying he was going to start killing people if gun control efforts moved forward. He said, and I quote:</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">“I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”</span></span> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Again, calling the “patriots” to arms is, I think, no accident.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Chew on that.</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Excerpt: Read More at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/opinion/revolutionary-language.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0" target="_blank">NY Times</a> </blockquote>
James Yeager comments on killing people sent chills up my spine after looking at his eyes which are cold. Taking to the streets to shoot people seems to be something he would be happy to do from his comments. What makes these people tick? Are they so far gone that they cannot reason and believe anything they are told by the right wing media even when it is lies? Could it be they this racist because we have a black President who they don't consider to be legitimate and the far right pundits play off of this hate to get them stirred up even more to make more money? <br />
<br />
Whatever is causing this hate needs to stop now before something tragic happens in this Country and more people are killed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with background/ID checks on sale of guns/ammo. Might want to look at anyone who declares that the 2nd amendment guarantees them the right to buy any weapon with no checks. Even Conservative Justice Scalia doesn't agree a person has the right to buy any weapon they want and the Government has no right to enact gun control laws:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Congress <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/why-did-the-assault-weapons-ban-expire-2012-12">arguably screwed up</a> when it let a ban on many semiautomatic weapons expire back in 2004. </blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But in a 2008 opinion that <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/117119729">struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban</a>, Justice Antonin Scalia suggested the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons.<br />
Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<strong>We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons</strong>'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion<a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/12/16/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Scalia-in-08-Right-to-bear-arms-is-not-unlimited/UPI-80201355648700/"> first cited by UPI </a>over the weekend. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Scalia reiterated that sentiment in July of this year when he told <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/fox-news">Fox News</a> Sunday that the Second Amendment <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/">leaves room for federal gun control legislation.</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Read more: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12#ixzz2HnNGg5Fo" target="_blank">Business Insider</a></blockquote>
When you get statements like this from Justice Scalia who is very conservative, you know the likes of the NRA leaders, Hannity, and Patriot groups are on the wrong side of history. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-9751593996597101572013-01-11T17:29:00.002-06:002013-01-11T17:29:56.276-06:00Where is the Common Sense Discussion on Gun Control from the Right?<i><b>Radical right is at it again distorting the facts about gun control</b></i><br />
<br />
When over 60% of NRA members said something needs to be done with the semi-automatic rifles that in some cases can be converted in a short time to fully automatic and that no one needs clips over 15 bullets, you know something is wrong with the NRA. Lo and behold Joe Scarborough, from Rep from the Florida Panhandle has the answer:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/11/scarborough-nra-is-protecting-gun-manufacturers-not-the-second-amendment/" target="_blank"><b>Scarborough: NRA is protecting gun manufacturers, not the Second Amendment</b></a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="author vcard"><span class="fn"><a class="fn n" href="http://tv.msnbc.com/author/janetimm/" rel="author" title="Jane C. Timm">Jane C. Timm</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/janestreet" rel="author-twitter external" target="_blank" title="Follow Jane C. Timm on Twitter">@janestreet</a></span></span>8:29 am on 01/11/2013 </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Can we just break through the BS?” Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough said on Friday’s Morning Joe. “This is not—for the NRA—about Second Amendment rights.”<br />
Scarborough slammed the NRA for fear-mongering for profits in the wake of the Newtown shooting, which has many calling for gun control. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Justice Scalia clearly laid out in Heller what Second Amendements were and what they were not. The most Conservative justice on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, made it very clear: assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Instead, Scarborough said, the NRA is protecting themselves and their wealthy gun manufacturers.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This is about gun manufacturers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. This is about retailers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. Do you know how much money these people have made over the slaughter of 20 innocents in Newtown? Do you know how much richer these rich gun manufacturers have gotten over the past month, and how the NRA uses that tragedy to gin up fears, and websites use that tragedy to gin up fears that they’re coming to take your guns away? Hey, they can’t take your guns away, we’ve got something called the Second Amendment in the Constitution of the United States. Justice Scalia said in 2009 they can’t come and take your guns away, you can have a handgun to protect your family. But after that, they can regulate guns.</blockquote>
Supporting an NRA that fights for manufacturers instead of rights will be terrible for Republicans, Scarborough explained. “If we’re going to fight all these common sense gun measures, then we are a Republican party that’s headed for extinction,” he said.</blockquote>
Now we know that the NRA is the lobbying group for gun and ammo manufacturers, they have the credibility of a gnat. How much are they getting paid to lobby to come up with their dumb statements on gun control refusing to tell the truth about the meeting with Vice President Biden yesterday. Instead the NRA comes out and continues to inflame the situation like Drudge comparing Obama to Hitler. Seems they don't have the facts even then. You want real facts, check out The Pink Flamingo which has an excellent article, <a href="http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/2013/01/10/its-not-the-2nd-amendment-but-the-technology/" target="_blank"><i><b>It's Not the Second Amendment but the Technology</b></i></a>, where the author has delved into the issue of gun control including the Wild West giving pertinent information that flies in the face of what the conservative pundits are saying. Imagine that, the conservative pundits are lying once again. This time it is on gun control.<br />
<br />
General McChrystal went from a hero of the right to a goat overnight when he dared to take on "assault weapons" and why the military needs them but not individuals:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/retired-gen-mcchrystal-to-msnbc-serious-action-is-necessary-on-gun-control/" target="_blank">Retired General <strong>Stanley McChrystal</strong> </a>expressed a desire for stricter gun control laws this morning on MSNBC’s <em>Morning Joe</em>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In light of NYC Mayor <strong>Michael Bloomberg</strong>‘s upcoming appearance on her program, co-host <strong><a href="http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Mika+Brzezinski">Mika Brzezinski</a></strong> asked McChrystal for his thoughts on so-called “assault weapons.”<br />
“I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine,” the retired general explained. “An M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
McChrystal retired in 2010 after a <em>Rolling Stone</em> profile quoted him and his staff mocking civilian government officials like Vice President <strong>Joe Biden</strong>. Prior to his resignation, he was the general of U.S. forces in Afghanistan; and before that he was Director of the Joint Staff.<br />
However, echoing a sentiment held by many gun control advocates, McChrystal then said, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look. I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want, but we have to protect our children and our police, and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Pressed for further thoughts, McChrystal added that, on gun control, “I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don’t think that’s enough.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Co-host <strong><a href="http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Willie+Geist">Willie Geist</a></strong> then asked if McChrystal had a “message” for the National Rifle Association and the legislators who would oversee any new laws. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The four-star general’s response: “I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”</b></blockquote>
Then there is the situation that Connecticut finds themselves in being surrounded by states with less strict gun control laws and you realize we need national gun laws no matter what the hard right is saying along with the NRA:<br />
<div class="post-51303 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry">
<div class="entry-content">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/Connecticut%20Gov.%20Dan%20Malloy%20explained%20that%20neighboring%20states%E2%80%99%20gun%20laws%20undercut%20the%20restrictions%20in%20his%20state%20and%20called%20for%20standardized,%20federal%20gun%20laws.%20%20%E2%80%9CWe%20just%20need%20to%20close%20some%20loopholes,%20we%20need%20to%20make%20sure%20that%20guns%20can%E2%80%99t%20be%20sold%20at%20shows%20in%20Florida%20and%20Virginia%20and%20work%20their%20way%20up%20to%20Philadelphia,%20where%20219%20people%20get%20killed,%20or%20work%20their%20way%20up%20to%20Bridgeport%20and%20New%20Haven%20and%20Hartford%20and%20Stamford%20and%20Norwalk,%E2%80%9D%20he%20said%20on%20Thursday%E2%80%99s%20Morning%20Joe.%20%20Gun%20rights%20advocates%20have%20regularly%20cited%20Connecticut%E2%80%99s%20strict%20gun%20laws%20as%20proof%20that%20gun%20control%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20work,%20but%20Malloy%20explained%20that%20if%20laws%20aren%E2%80%99t%20consistent,%20neither%20is%20the%20control.%20%20%E2%80%9CThose%20guns%20shouldn%E2%80%99t%20be%20coming%20up%20to%20our%20part%20of%20the%20country,%20we%20don%E2%80%99t%20allow%20the%20sale%20of%20many%20of%20those%20types%20of%20guns%20of%20our%20states%20but%20you%20can%20go%20to%20the%20places%20where%20no%20one%E2%80%99s%20doing%20the%20kind%20of%20checking,%20no%20one%E2%80%99s%20doing%20the%20background.%20Let%E2%80%99s%20do%20the%20common%20sense%20things.%E2%80%9D%20%20Neighboring%20state%E2%80%99s%20laws%20are%20notorious%20for%20undercutting%20the%20laws%20in%20states%20with%20tough%20restrictions.%20A%20report%20in%20New%20York%20this%20summer%20found%20that%20states%20like%20Virginia,%20Pennsylvania,%20North%20Carolina,%20and%20Florida%20provided%20the%20bulk%20of%20the%20illegal%20guns%20seized%20in%20New%20York:%20of%208,793%20guns%20seized%20in%20New%20York%20last%20year,%20just%201,595%20of%20them%20were%20bought%20in%20the%20state.%20%20%E2%80%9CThese%20high%20capacity%20magazines%20they%20don%E2%80%99t%20make%20any%20sense,%20we%20don%E2%80%99t%20need%20those%20in%20our%20country,%20no%20one%20is%20going%20deer%20hunting%20with%20them,%20you%20don%E2%80%99t%20use%20that%20to%20protect%20your%20house,%20this%20has%20gotten%20crazy,%E2%80%9D%20Malloy%20added.%20He%20also%20noted%20that%20mental%20health%20and%20the%20glorification%20of%20violence%20also%20needs%20to%20be%20addressed.%20%20Federal%20gun%20law%20is%20needed%20to%20really%20control%20gun%20purchases%20and%20should%20limit%20ammunition%20magazines%20and%20standardize%20gun%20restrictions.%20%20%E2%80%9CLimit%20magazines%20under%20the%20assault%20weapons%20ban,%20which%20was%20allowed%20to%20go%20away,%20you%20couldn%E2%80%99t%20have%20had%20the%20clips%20that%20that%20young%20man%20took%20into%20the%20Sandy%20Hook%20schools,%20it%20would%20not%20have%20been%20possible,%20that%E2%80%99s%20a%20common%20sense%20example,%E2%80%9D%20he%20said.%20%20%E2%80%9CClose%20all%20loopholes%E2%80%94every%20gun%20purchase%20has%20to%20have%20the%20same%20rigor%20attached%20to%20it%20regardless%20of%20where%20it%E2%80%99s%20occurs%20in%20our%20country.%20Those%20are%20two%20things%20that%20would%20make%20a%20gigantic%20difference%20in%20the%20amount%20of%20violence%20that%E2%80%99s%20taking%20place%20in%20our%20urban%20environments%20and,%20yes,%20under%20these%20environments%20where%20someone%20goes%20in%20and%20shoots%20up%20a%20movie%20theater%20or%20shoots%20up%20a%20school,%E2%80%9D%20Malloy%20said." target="_blank">Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy explained that neighboring states’ gun laws</a> undercut the restrictions in his state and called for standardized, federal gun laws. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“We just need to close some loopholes, we need to make sure that guns can’t be sold at shows in Florida and Virginia and work their way up to Philadelphia, where 219 people get killed, or work their way up to Bridgeport and New Haven and Hartford and Stamford and Norwalk,” he said on Thursday’s <em>Morning Joe</em>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Gun rights advocates have regularly cited Connecticut’s strict gun laws as proof that gun control doesn’t work, but Malloy explained that if laws aren’t consistent, neither is the control.<br />
“Those guns shouldn’t be coming up to our part of the country, we don’t allow the sale of many of those types of guns of our states but you can go to the places where no one’s doing the kind of checking, no one’s doing the background. Let’s do the common sense things.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Neighboring state’s laws are notorious for undercutting the laws in states with tough restrictions. A report in New York this summer found that states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Florida provided the bulk of the illegal guns seized in New York: <a href="http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/article/1148870--how-new-york-city-s-gun-laws-get-undercut" target="_blank">of 8,793 guns seized in New York last year, just 1,595 of them were bought in the state.</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/article/1148870--how-new-york-city-s-gun-laws-get-undercut" target="_blank"></a>“These high capacity magazines they don’t make any sense, we don’t need those in our country, no one is going deer hunting with them, you don’t use that to protect your house, this has gotten crazy,” Malloy added. He also noted that mental health and the glorification of violence also needs to be addressed. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Federal gun law is needed to really control gun purchases and should limit ammunition magazines and standardize gun restrictions. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Limit magazines under the assault weapons ban, which was allowed to go away, you couldn’t have had the clips that that young man took into the Sandy Hook schools, it would not have been possible, that’s a common sense example,” he said. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Close all loopholes—every gun purchase has to have the same rigor attached to it regardless of where it’s occurs in our country. Those are two things that would make a gigantic difference in the amount of violence that’s taking place in our urban environments and, yes, under these environments where someone goes in and shoots up a movie theater or shoots up a school,” Malloy said.</blockquote>
I have seen some of the scariest statements ever that border on treason and frankly should be called treason that encourage people to take to the streets to protect their guns from the Government. President has been called Hitler and Stalin by some of the pundits. These people frankly scare me with their rhetoric because there are some people out there who believe every word a Glenn Beck, Fox News, or Rush has to say that could end up harming innocent people. I am convinced that the hard right has gone way over the top when I received this article by <a href="http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5365" target="_blank">Chuck Baldwin</a> in email this morning:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I have been writing this column for over a dozen years, and I can safely say the column I wrote last week, “My Line In The Sand Is Drawn Here,” produced more response than any column I have ever written–maybe more than any two or three columns combined. And what is even more noteworthy: unlike most columns, the responses to this column were at least 90% favorable. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In last week’s column I said, “Throughout the United States, there are tens of millions of fully-armed citizens who are more than capable of defending themselves and their communities against any enemy–whether that enemy is an internal or external one. In fact, many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US armed forces. Firearms–especially semi-automatic rifles–in the hands of millions of American citizens is truly the only thing that stands between freedom and tyranny for the people of the United States. That Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein want to disarm the American people should be considered an act of war against our liberties! In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this is a line in the sand that none of us can afford to ignore.”</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I also wrote, “Make no mistake about it: to take away an American’s right to a semi-automatic rifle is to FULLY DISARM HIM. There is no Second Amendment; there is no right to keep and bear arms; there is no citizen militia; there is no liberty without the semi-automatic rifle!”<br />
I concluded the column saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“My line in the sand is drawn here! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Make no mistake about it: it is not just semi-automatic rifles that these gun grabbers are after. Ultimately, they want to take all of our guns. We either stop them now or there will be no stopping them at all.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
See the column at: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5345" target="_blank" title="My Line In The Sand Is Drawn Here!">My Line In The Sand Is Drawn Here!</a></blockquote>
</blockquote>
No one I have heard from the left is talking about going into someone's house and taking guns away. They want to control the sale of new high powered semi-automatics that can be converted in short order to fully automatic, the large clips, and tighten up once again the background checks that Republicans loosened when they were in charge of the Congress under President Bush. If you are not willing to have a comprehensive background check, then you shouldn't be buying a gun. Having large magazine clips along with being able to buy the same armor/clothing of the police and military is also unnecessary. The very idea of an armed guard to protect the Country flies in the face of facts. You know those pesky things that get in the way of the hard right narrative.<br />
<br />
When you think it cannot get any more insane, along comes Ohio with a <a href="http://www.wopular.com/ohio-school-board-votes-arm-janitors" target="_blank">school board voting to arm janitors</a>. Maybe I am naive but how does a janitor go up against someone with a semi-automatic who is out to kill? That seems to be like bringing a knife to a gun fight where if you have the knife, you are going to lose.<br />
<br />
There needs to be common sense brought to the gun control debate including background checks no matter who sells the gun and limiting magazines to 15 rounds which still gives target shooters what they need. The very idea private sellers at gun shows don't have to do background checks make them worthless. Time to stop any semi-automatic that can be turned into fully automatic quickly from being sold. Once again people are looking for common sense gun laws not laws to take away guns from individuals no matter how much the hard right media repeats that narrative. </div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-42776179793586514512013-01-10T17:12:00.001-06:002013-01-10T17:12:44.294-06:00Where are GOP Moderate Activists? Please Step Forward!When I first started this blog, I used to wake up in the morning trying to decide how I could annoy a liberal that day. That is no longer the case -- the progressives make more sense then the hard right of the GOP in today's world. The GOP has totally left me with their social issues being their #1 priority along with giving the Defense Department everything they want while at the same time wanting to cut the social safety net for seniors and victims of disaster.<br />
<br />
Over the years always read the Media Research Center reports until I discovered they were not exactly telling the truth while researching what they had said before using it on here. They were repeating the Fox News/Rush/Hannity Talking Points. Started going to Media Matters and realized they were telling the truth as everything I wanted to use checked out. One thing led to another and realized that the conservative media was feeding crap to listeners/viewers in order to suit their narrative that all Democrats are bad especially President Obama. The conservative media was part of a scam on the American people IMHO just like conservative groups/think tanks have been lying and scamming to get people to donate to their cause when what they are saying is not factual.<br />
<br />
My research day in and day out has been enlightening to discover the so-called conservatives I once supported were dead wrong on the President. They are still at it today this time on gun control comparing him to Hitler which disgusts me to no end. Their lack of honesty and integrity is duly noted. Chances of trusting them again are slim to none. Some of the pundits/websites have zero ethics and will lie about President Obama never giving it a second thought. I kept asking myself if they are that racist and unfortunately, I had to admit they were. The sad part is that I think they would be treating a woman President exactly the same with their continual war on women as we are still seeing today. A lot of today's conservatives seem to believe only in a white male dominated Country.<br />
<br />
Guess you could say I took my blinders off discovering there is little if anything I support or respect out of the hard right GOP. I consider myself a center right person who believes the economy would be much further on the way to recovery if it wasn't for the obstructionist House Republicans who refuse to work with the President unless absolutely forced by circumstances like the recent cliff negotiations. <br />
<br />
I am a fiscal conservative who believes in a strong defense but not going overboard like Republicans have been doing since 2000. Buying two new fighters, F-22 and F-35, was a huge waste of taxpayer dollars but made Lockheed-Martin and the subs very happy. Even when Lockheed was behind schedule and over budget, the Chair of Lockheed received a $2M raise last year on top of his $25M+ annual salary. Why are heads of defense companies paid such obscene salaries and get raises for failing? <br />
<br />
Any GOP member of Congress who says you cannot cut Defense is lying. There is so much waste in the DoD that it would make your head swim if you knew the facts. That is my primary reason for supporting former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense -- he knows where the bodies are buried and how much can be saved by DoD. Defense contractors through their GOP Senator mouthpieces are in an all out war to defeat Hagel. Maybe they are afraid he will actually ask for accountability from Defense contractors and stop the sole source contracts to the big aerospace companies. I have heard some dumb statements about Chuck Hagel coming from former friends like McCain and Lindsey Graham who are putting Party over Country once again. Why is what I would like to know. Who is pulling their strings? <br />
<br />
Yesterday when I wrote my blog post asking<i> Can the Republican Party be Saved </i>was left with the sickening feeling that the GOP had gone so far right that there was no hope in bringing it back. Lo and behold today, Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast has some good ideas in his article about using moderates to take the GOP back to center right. He understands in order to make DC work you have to have two viable parties not just one. One Party system doesn't work as whoever is in charge becomes very arrogant starting to believe they answer to no one. <br />
<br />
The problem is with this group of Republicans in Congress is that they won't face reality the Republican Party lost big on November 6th as they are still behaving like they won everything. That mentality leaves me stunned.<br />
<br />
The question of the day is if there are moderates who are willing to work to bring the GOP back to the center along with big dollars for a campaign to start running more moderate Republicans who are fiscal conservatives and could care less about social issues. <br />
<br />
Prefer no social issues even enter the discussion after learning the former VP candidate and current <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/paul-ryan-personhood-bill_n_2440365.html" target="_blank">Rep Paul Ryan is co-sponsoring</a> another Personhood Bill. Economy is in the tank and social issues become front and center again along with <a href="http://www.birchindigo.com/repeal-obamacare-bill-introduced-by-michelle-bachmann/" target="_blank">Michelle Bachmann introduced</a> as one of the first bills of the new House another bill to end Obamacare. Still haven't recovered from her being named to the Intelligence Committee. Boehner and leadership are idiots for putting her on Intelligence Committee who loves to grandstand as we saw in the Presidential debates. Facts don't matter to Bachmann -- it is the narrative. If I was the CIA, I would be extremely careful what I said in her presence. Do I think she would run out to a microphone -- absolutely just like the GOP Senators have been doing on Benghazi.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The big question hanging over all this is: Are there even enough moderate Republicans around in America anymore? It depends on what you mean by moderate. I mean someone who is fiscally conservative and socially moderate, but more than that, who has enough of a civic-republican streak to want this warfare to end. I have to believe that there are millions of such people out there. They just have no one to report to, no place to go. If someone builds this, they will come.</blockquote>
Must admit I would hope that Tomasky is correct about the number of moderates but not holding my breath. I come from a total Red State so hope of a moderate being elected is slim to none but why not try. The OK legislature is so hard right in the OK House that even our Supreme Court routinely knocks down their bills including the one on Personhood informing the hard right that Abortion is the law of the land and they are infringing. That sent shock waves through the hard right here but they will try again and put that Personhood bill over education or infrastructure. I would be glad to sign up for a center-right campaign to elect more moderates but where are they? You have to have a backbone and nerves of steel to oppose the hard right. <br />
<br />
I agree with<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/10/wanted-moderate-gop-activists.html" target="_blank"> </a><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/10/wanted-moderate-gop-activists.html" target="_blank">Tomasky's ideas</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="text parbase section">
You may roll your eyes, and yes, I readily confess that this is a big and very long-term job. But making the party as right wing as it is was a big and long-term job, too, and someone did it. Moderate Republicans, and even mainstream conservative Republicans who want to see Washington function again, should get together to form and fund a network of organizations that will pursue four goals: </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text6" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><br />
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
First, just make moderate Republicanism visible again. Launch a public awareness campaign. Get a television show. Or at least get a stable of people to go on the other shows. Let Americans know that the viewpoint even exists. </blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Second, start an organization to recruit young people, activists of all ages, and potential candidates. Start college campus clubs and newspapers or magazines. Host big conferences in Washington and elsewhere. Give people a sense of an extant community. </blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Third, start running some primaries against some hard-right people in districts where victory is possible. Admittedly, there are many states and districts where there’s no chance in blazes that a moderate could beat a conservative. Many state parties have been captured lock, stock, and barrel by the tea party, even in liberal states (Maine). But there are some places where moderates could win. And the tea party may be fading. </blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Fourth, set up a big think tank in Washington to advance more moderate policy ideas and, just as importantly, to urge moderation in tactics as well—that is, more civility, such that every single vote isn’t a matter of warfare. </blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
Will Tomasky's ideas work? IMHO, it is worth a try. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/10/wanted-moderate-gop-activists.html" target="_blank">Wanted: Moderate GOP Activists</a></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
by Michael Tomasky </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Jan 10, 2013 4:45 AM EST </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Nothing would do more to fix American politics than if wealthy Republicans bankrolled a network of moderate GOP organizations, says Michael Tomasky.
I see that Brent Bozell, who never runs out of ways to spend rich conservatives’ money, now has an outfit called For America, which is mounting a pressure campaign against Mitch McConnell over his role in the fiscal cliff deal. The online ad buy will be targeted to Kentucky and will ask, “Mitch McConnell, which side are you on?”—that of socialism or that of Kentuckyism? What struck me when I read this was: How come there isn’t a group that is taking out ads against Rand Paul, McConnell’s junior colleague, one of just five GOP senators who voted against the bill, asking him which side he’s on—the side of bare-minimum fiscal sanity or the side of ruining the economy for the sake of making an ideological point? Of course there isn’t. But there must be. In fact there is nothing—nothing—our political system needs more than a strong and well-financed moderate-Republican pressure organization. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Think about it. Why is our politics so stuck right now? Because one of our parties has gone bonkers. Oh, sure, the Democrats aren’t altar boys. Fine. But High Broderism is blessedly dying as more and more establishment types come to see that it’s basically the GOP that’s throwing the wrench in the works. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Read More at <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/10/wanted-moderate-gop-activists.html" target="_blank">The Daily Beast</a></blockquote>
Looks like Brent Bozell of Media Research fame has a new group who is now threatening Republicans they are going to be primaried like the threats coming from Club for Growth and the Koch's Americans for Prosperity. These group along with the religious right and social conservatives have taken the GOP very hard right. They are not about to give it up without a fight that will destroy what is left of the Republican Party IMHO.<br />
<br />
Now to find some more moderate donors who would be willing to fund this effort. Short of that a lot of us will be supporting more moderate Dems in 2014 to kick out the obstructionist Republicans from leading the House or taking the Senate who are adverse to the word 'democracy' with their House Hastert Rule and Senate Filibuster rules. How many people in the Country understand how dictatorial today's GOP has become in the House with the<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2013/01/03/the_hastert_rule_speaker_boehner_needs_to_scrap_the_majority_of_the_majority.html" target="_blank"> Hastert Rule</a> and in the Senate with the filibuster which goes far beyond what was intended?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the House, the filibuster equivalent has been the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority" target="_blank">Hastert rule</a>, an informal Republican principle under which the
speaker permits to the floor for a vote only bills that have majority support of
the majority party. This has empowered the extreme right wing of the Republican
Party. Speaker John Boehner ignored the Hastert rule in permitting the
legislation that overcame the “fiscal cliff” to get to the floor. The bill
passed with only 85 Republican votes, drawing most of its support from the
Democratic side of the aisle. Boehner was then <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/03/boehner_wins_new_term_as_speaker_in_maximally_humiliating_fashion.html">barely
re-elected as speaker</a>.</blockquote>
There are new rules to change the filibuster in the Senate but not holding my breath on that either. Will the 113th Congress be as unproductive as the 112th? Sure hope not. My wish is that some common sense returns to Republicans in Congress but frankly I wouldn't place my bet on that either. I think today's Republicans have the common sense of a gnat as their dealing with the loss on November 6th, 2012, was to push back more becoming more obnoxious especially on gun control. Little hope for the Republican Party to see the light. More likely a new centrist party will form as the Democrats sure don't want all of us center right people voting in their elections.<br />
<br />
Stay tuned as the hard right gets even loonier and more obstructionist then last year the way they are starting out in the 113th Congress.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-73720758046698013752013-01-09T14:25:00.000-06:002013-01-09T14:25:03.061-06:00Can the Republican Party be Saved?<br />
Any Republican saying the party is<b> NOT</b> in trouble has a reading comprehension problem IMHO. Over the last six years, state parties are gradually being taken over by the hard right 'radicals' to use Sen Hatch's word. <br />
<br />
In my own state of Oklahoma, there was a <a href="http://americanvisionnews.com/3388/dirty-tricks-prevail-in-ok-gop-convention" target="_blank">fight at the OK GOP State Convention</a> in May where a punch was thrown along with chairs and paper, delegations were shut off from voting, and the Convention adjourned before it was complete. Made the national news. Imagine being in the delegation the Convention is discussing to make a decision that affects the delegation, but then having the curtain drawn to separate you from the main Convention so you are allowed to vote The hard right has taken over the OK GOP from all accounts. If you want proof look no further that the OK GOP website where the Chair of OK GOP has this picture on the site:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.okgop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/MM-banner2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="130" src="http://www.okgop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/MM-banner2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
In checking into the background of today's Minuteman, I discovered <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project" target="_blank">Minuteman Project</a></b> is an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism" title="Activism">activist</a> organization started in April 2005 by a group of private individuals in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States">United States</a> to monitor the <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_%E2%80%93_Mexico_border" title="United States – Mexico border">United States – Mexico border</a>'s flow of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States" title="Illegal immigration to the United States">illegal immigrants</a>. Co-founded by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gilchrist" title="Jim Gilchrist">Jim Gilchrist</a>, the name derives from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen" title="Minutemen">Minutemen</a>, militiamen who fought in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution" title="American Revolution">American Revolution</a>. The Minuteman Project describes itself as "a citizens' <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Watch" title="Neighborhood Watch">Neighborhood Watch</a> on our border", and has attracted media attention to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration" title="Illegal immigration">illegal immigration</a>.</blockquote>
The project (Minuteman) has generated controversy, drawing criticism from former <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Mexico" title="President of Mexico">Mexican President</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Fox" title="Vicente Fox">Vicente Fox</a> and former <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_President" title="United States President">United States President</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush" title="George W. Bush">George W. Bush</a>, who expressed dislike for "vigilante" border projects. In the 1960's the<a href="http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4745" target="_blank"> Minuteman along with the John Birchers</a> were the biggest anti-John F Kennedy groups operating openly with rallies against him. Both groups were investigated in the 60's by the FBI. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm" target="_blank">Militia and Minuteman in the 18th century</a> were two separate groups but today many people use them interchangeably. Still haven't figured out why we need a<a href="http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_domestic_terrorism_tmln&haitian_elite_2021_organizations=haitian_elite_2021_other_militias" target="_blank"> militia today</a> when we have the National Guard. The ones in the Texas Hill Country frankly frighten me reminding me of neo-Nazi's as I have witnessed how they goosestep march:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Although the terms <i>militia</i> and <i>minutemen</i> are sometimes used
interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference
between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from
foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite
force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly.
Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers.
Typically 25 years of age or younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm,
reliability, and physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia
served as Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were
the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.</blockquote>
Last I checked, Oklahoma was not a border state which brings into question why have the Minuteman symbol on your website. Do they honestly think the Federal Government is going to try and take over the State? What minority in their right mind would want to be a member of a major political party whose symbol has become the Minuteman?<br />
<br />
When I first moved to Oklahoma, I used to tell friends from other states that they would not believe this GOP as it was unlike any other. Then I decided to get involved after the 2000 national election thinking I could make a difference and along with others who had recently moved to Oklahoma bring some common sense to the GOP. We were wrong. After I became totally involved, it dawned on me the radical right was gradually taking over the party and nothing anyone could do because the State Party had sold out to the religious right and social conservatives leaving those with common sense out in the cold. It was not worth getting upset after sitting through two State Conventions where it was all about fighting with the hard right and accomplishing very little. When the former Chair resigned to run for statewide office, any hope of common sense returning had gone out the window. <br />
<br />
Found this article from Senator Hatch on Utah while researching for this article and discovered the 'radical' right movement has spread:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/orrin-hatch-radicals-could-overtake-utah-gop" target="_blank">Orrin Hatch: ‘Radicals’ Could Overtake <span style="white-space: nowrap;">Utah GOP</span></a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="" rel="author">David Taintor, </a> <time class="timestamp" data-ago="about 1 hour" datetime="2013-01-09T08:53:27-05:00" pubdate="pubdate"> 8:53 AM EST, Wednesday January 9, 2013</time> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865570226/Utah-GOP-may-end-up-being-dominated-by-radicals-Hatch-warns.html">told the Deseret News</a> that "radicals" who don't share Republican Party values could overtake the state GOP. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Thank goodness they’re not the majority,” Hatch said in an interview, <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865570226/Utah-GOP-may-end-up-being-dominated-by-radicals-Hatch-warns.html">published Wednesday</a>. “But we’ve got to watch that or we’ll end up with a state dominated by radicals.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hatch voted in favor of the fiscal cliff deal, but he <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865570226/Utah-GOP-may-end-up-being-dominated-by-radicals-Hatch-warns.html">told the paper</a> he understands why some of his Utah colleagues did not. “Those who voted against it did so to protect themselves, I guess, from some of these radical outside groups," he said. “I don’t find any fault with the delegation because we’ve got a special climate out there that is very difficult.”</blockquote>
We have a United States Senator discussing the climate in Utah for any member of the House going against what the 'radical' groups want as 'difficult.' How many other states have the same problem? Has the Republican Party allowed the John Birchers, Minuteman, Militia, hard right social and religious conservatives, along with anti-government types to take over? Is that why some House Members who we thought had some common sense are now acting like people we don't know? Are they afraid to lose their seats and be replaced by this radical right group which would make it worse? These are questions that need answers. Senator Hatch spoke out but will others?<br />
<br />
Yesterday on Twitter, I found a link to the Republican Main Street Partnership naming former US Rep Steve LaTourette (R-OH) who just retired from the House to lead their group. At the same time they dropped "Republican" from their name which speaks volumes. Rep LaTourette called the<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/steve-latourette-grover-norquist_n_1733712.html" target="_blank"> Grover Norquist Tax Pledge "Crap</a>" last fall which made me laugh. He represented the people of his District well along with the State of Ohio -- would have loved to see some group tell him how to vote as that would have been worth the price of tickets. The sad part is that Rep LaTourette is just the type of Republican we needed to keep in the Congress who brought some common sense to the House. Maybe he can do more as President of this group to bring common sense back to the GOP. His first statement as the new President of Main Street Partnership (MSP) (formely Republican MSP) is a great start (my bold in the article):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/2013/01/former-u-s-rep-steve-latourette-r-oh-statement-on-the-new-main-street-partnership/" target="_blank">Former U.S. Rep Steve LaTourette (R-OH) Statement on the New Main Street Partnership</a> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="date published time" title="2013-01-08T21:19:51+0000">January 8, 2013</span> By <span class="author vcard"><span class="fn"><a href="http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/author/rmsp/" rel="author" title="Posts by RMSP">RMSP</a></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(Washington, D.C.) – “Earlier today, the Board of Directors voted in favor of changing the name we do business under to simply the ‘Main Street Partnership.’ </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“While we have changed our name, we have not changed our values or our mission. We will continue to be a right of center organization and continue to represent the governing wing of the Republican Party. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>“Partisanship has become deeply poisonous to the process in Washington over the last few years.</b> As someone who just left Congress, I understand this more than most. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>“We at Main Street understand that to begin to turn back this tide and to begin to restore the American people’s faith in Washington we must celebrate – not attack – those on both sides of the aisle who are willing to work together to find solutions to the serious challengers we face as a country. </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“While we remain Republicans, we are committed to reaching out to fair-minded members of the Democratic Party. We understand that bipartisan compromise – by it’s very definition – means working with members of the other party. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Compromise doesn’t mean surrendering – it means success. Compromise is not an act of political cowardice – indeed it is the exact opposite, it is an act of incredible political courage.<br />“We need more voices in Washington willing to put the best interests of the American people above petty partisanship. That is what we have done at Main Street over the years and that is what we will continue to do. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“We look forward to working with our centrist Republican members in the months and years ahead and engaging fair-minded independents and Democrats who want to help do what is right for this country.”</blockquote>
This 'Statement' of the MSP is about all Americans not just a select few and should be what governs the RNC which has its head buried in the sand pretending nothing happened on November 6, 2012. RNC would do well to adopt the same 'Statement' but that would mean telling State parties to rid yourself of 'radicals' which this Koch Brothers Chair doesn't have the nerve or backbone to do IMHO. <br />
<br />
<h4 class="title">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">The Main Street Partnership is dedicated to promoting and building a pragmatic, thoughtful, fiscally conservative, and inclusive “Governing Majority,” where political debate is encouraged to promote solutions to improve the lives of all Americans. Embracing the full spectrum of center-right ideologies and values in order to build coalitions, the Main Street Partnership is the largest organization of elected leaders who are in the mold of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. For more information on the Main Street Partnership, visit our website at </span><a href="http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/" style="font-weight: normal;" title="http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/">www.republicanmainstreet.org</a><span style="font-weight: normal;">.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Yesterday a link to an article about the RNC co-Finance Chair came in my email which led to today's post, <i>Can the Republican Party be Saved</i>. Decided to include the article to show that not all the RNC are happy with what happened in the 2012 election cycle even though the current Koch Brothers RNC Chair doesn't seem to get it. Now maybe it will wake him up (not holding my breath) with the RNC Co-Finance Chair, Georgette Mosbacher, hitting the ceiling about the Republican Party. She speaks for many of us who are furious what we are seeing out of today's Republicans who refuse to acknowledge they got shellacked on November 6, 2012, making all kinds of excuses why they lost. Mosbacher nails the reasons they lost:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/08/mosbacher-i-m-furious-at-my-own-party.html" target="_blank">Mosbacher: I’m Furious at My Own Party</a></blockquote>
</h4>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="byline byline-style-a">by <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/michelle-cottle.html" property="foaf:publications" rel="author"> Michelle Cottle </a> </span> <time class="timestamp" datetime="2013-01-08T09:45:00.000Z" property="dc:created" pubdate="pubdate">Jan 8, 2013 4:45 AM EST</time></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">RNC Finance Committee co-chair Georgette Mosbacher tells Michelle Cottle that she’s “mad as hell” about what Republicans have done to themselves. </span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span>Best not to ask GOP fundraising legend Georgette Mosbacher about the state of her beloved party unless you want an earful. The co-chair of the RNC’s Finance Committee (and CEO of Borghese cosmetics), Mosbacher is “mad as hell” about the myriad ways the “brand has been tarnished”: the sorry state of the presidential primary process, the ongoing alienation of Latino voters, the “outrageous” Senate candidates that the party ran this cycle, the epic failure of the fiscal-cliff negotiations, and, most recently, the House’s dithering over disaster aid for the victims of superstorm Sandy. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I’m angry!” fumes Mosbacher. “I’m angry about the stupid mistakes that were self-inflicted.” It’s this last part she finds the most enraging. Though she believes the party has “unfairly” been defined by its recent mistakes, she is very clear about where the ultimate blame lies: “We did it to ourselves.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mosbacher is, of course, not alone in her ire. Postelection, you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a hastily assembled group of Republican leaders laboring to figure out where the party went wrong last cycle and how to get it back on track. So far, however, Mosbacher is unimpressed by their efforts. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I have not seen an honest postmortem assessment yet,” she told me. “I have not seen anything that gives me any comfort right now.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This is an unfortunate development for the GOP, because, as Mosbacher explained it to me this weekend: “I’m not writing any checks, and I’m not asking anyone else to write any checks until I hear something that makes sense to me.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The root problem, as she sees it: the sorry state of the party’s leadership in Washington.</blockquote>
<div class="dek-body">
<div class="parsys updated-dek">
</div>
<div>
<a href="" name="body_text2" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="" name="body_text3" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="" name="body_text4" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="" name="body_text5" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><div class="text parbase section">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Read more of the article at <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/08/mosbacher-i-m-furious-at-my-own-party.html" target="_blank">The Daily Beast</a></blockquote>
Will the RNC take Mosbacher's words to heart or will they continue their trek to the hard right. If the first few days of the new Congress are any indication, they didn't learn one thing from November 6, 2012, and are continuing down the path to destruction of the Republican Party as more and more people question why they are in a Party that is so hard right declaring war on about every group around. Yet they do not believe in the Government unless it is for their own personal cause as evidenced by Republican House Members who voted for disaster relief aid for their home states in the recent past but not for Hurricane Sandy victims from NY/NJ. Guess you could say they don't want to help people from blue states but a lot of Republicans live in those blue states as well who they are treating like chopped liver.<br />
<br />
Earlier in December former Utah Governor John Huntsman who was a candidate for President as a Republican gave a scathing interview saying the Republican Party is "devoid of soul" which I happen to agree with as we have seen up close and personal recently with the Hurricane Sandy vote. Before that it was the jobs bill for veterans, farm bill to help drought victims from last summer, women's issues, veteran's issues, and the list goes on of groups that have been dissed by the Republican Party in favor of the wealthy this last few years since they took control of the House:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/jon-huntsman-gop-is-devoid-of-a-soul-needs-strong-dose-of-libertarianism/" target="_blank">Former Republican presidential candidate <strong>Jon Huntsman</strong></a> took a critical look at his own party, asserting that it is “devoid of a soul.” In <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/9771589/Republican-party-is-devoid-of-a-soul-says-Jon-Huntsman.html" target="_blank">a lengthy interview</a> with the UK’s <em>Daily Telegraph</em>, Huntsman elaborated on what he viewed as missteps, and offered some advice going forward. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It’s “troubling” that the party currently doesn’t have a leader or a “defined agenda.” But the good news, he said, is “that will come in time” through the “reformation process.” The GOP must “return the system to the people,” Huntsman argued.</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Where is a leader? No one seems to want to step forward and take control moving the party back to the center right. Are they that afraid of the Tea Party who only <a href="http://iflizwerequeen.com/2013/01/08/only-8-of-voters-identify-with-the-tea-party-today_q_16726.html" target="_blank">8% of the Country</a> identify with according to Rasmussen or are they afraid the Koch Brothers and their allies who run the Tea Party and other hard right groups? Are they are afraid to stand up against the Koch's and other hard right fringe groups demands which could lead to being primaried and a freeze on donations to their campaigns? Thought this excerpt below from an article about the 8% was interesting hitting the mark about the Tea Party that many activists have been saying for several years. We never saw most of these people working campaigns in the past but then they took over and basically told longtime Republicans to hit the road -- they didn't need our help or expertise. <br />
<br />
The Koch Brothers front organization, Americans for Prosperity, are doing the dirty work of the Koch's. Noticed in my state when they would speak at Republican functions, they didn't seem to have a grasp of how Government works but just repeated their talking points. When you asked a germane question, you would get a blank stare and they would go on to the next question. In talking to friends around the Country, they had the same reaction. <br />
<br />
This excerpt gets it right about the Tea Party IMHO. Some people have become rich off the scams being perpetrated by today's conservatives. Ask <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-kristol-slams-major-parts-of-american-conservatism-that-have-become-rackets/" target="_blank">Bill Kristol</a> what he thinks of the scams by conservative groups.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong><a href="http://iflizwerequeen.com/2013/01/08/only-8-of-voters-identify-with-the-tea-party-today_q_16726.html" target="_blank">WHY THE RECEDING POPULARITY OF THE TEA PARTY? PEOPLE EVENTUALLY WISE UP TO THE FACT THEY ARE BEING PLAYED FOR FOOLS.</a></strong> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You can attribute much of their dwindling success to the information put out by <em><strong>Move On</strong></em> , <strong><em>Occupy Wall Street. </em></strong>and many of the progressive blogs. These groups banged heavily away with the facts regarding the true organizers behind the Tea Party and their other affiliated groups and people such as “Americans for Prosperity” and “Freedomworks”–<span style="text-decoration: underline;">none other than the right-wing fanatical plutocrat Koch Brothers.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>Initially, many of the members of the Tea Party were sincere Americans from the working class who were and still are fed up with business as usual in Washington and the leadership of the Wall Street investor class. They fell like easy prey for the propaganda financed by the Koch brothers. It sounded good and also much of it played on their racist fears that the browns and blacks were getting all the “good” jobs and being given government handouts. All the Tea Party cries of sending all the illegal immigrants back to Mexico and/or putting them in jail perfectly suited the goals of the plutocrat leaders as such solutions 1) raised hatred and anger of the Tea Party members thus making them easier to manipulate; and 2) meant more money for the instigators in terms of growing the prison population in the USA for the Wall Street corporations who now manage our prisons. They never drew the line connecting the money going to support these prisoners as coming out of the taxpayers pockets, but Move On and Occupy did–again and again and again. Eventually people have come to understand what an utter sham the entire Tea Party was and continues to some extent to be. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>Ironically, all the while the Tea Party was on the rise, it was the leaders of this movement who were after the government handouts-</strong>-in the form of relaxed EPA requirements for their operations (thus more “freedom” to pollute our air and waters with impunity); more agricultural subsidies for corporate agra-businesses and Park Avenue “farmers”; more tax breaks skewed for the rich; more more more–but all for them, not the majority. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Gradually, the people came to realize these phonies for who they are. I suspect that most of the 8 to 12% remaining are the hard core plutocratic right wing millionaires and billionaires such as Donald Trump and Sheldon Adelson. They were the plants in the audience. The funny thing now is that they are fast becoming the only ones left to listen to the sound of their own lies and bullshit.</blockquote>
The Koch Brothers and their cronies are the ones destroying the Republican Party of the center right for their own selfish whims IMHO. They want no EPA or regulations on their business but yet want to keep subsidies on oil and gas and big conglomerate farms which benefit them. They are more then willing to take handouts when they are the recipient but not when members of the middle class are involved -- we are on our own. In the small minds of the wealthy GOP donors, the middle class is supposed to give up our benefits from the Government so the wealthy can keep theirs. In their small world it is every senior citizens for themselves with no safety net even though they paid into social security for years and it is not part of the budget. It doesn't stop the wealthy donors from wanting to do away with the program as we know it. <br />
<br />
The Kochs and other wealthy GOP donors seem to have a warped sense of what it means to be an American IMHO. The fact they started the Tea Party to take over the Republican Party should scare everyone. We need two major parties or the Democrats will run amok just like the GOP when they were in charge of all branches of Government. I have a hunch right now though that if Democrats were in charge of the House, they would do a lot better as it is fresh in their minds how they blew it in 2010.<br />
<br />
This says it all about the Koch Bros Tea Party and their agenda they are now forcing on what used to be common sense Republicans in the House:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.nationalmemo.com/tea-party-absolutism-the-high-cost-of-hating-government/" target="_blank">Tea Party Absolutism: The High Cost Of Hating Government</a></span> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">January 7th, 2013 5:27 pm</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.nationalmemo.com/?author_name=nicholas-wapshott" style="font-size: medium; font-weight: normal;">Nicholas Wapshott</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">The tourniquet applied by the outgoing Congress to the economy allows a two-month breather before we are consumed by the next deadline. The president and his party can allow themselves a brief moment of celebration for imposing higher taxes on the richest Americans, but the next stage in fixing the nation’s fiscal problems may not be as easy. By the end of February, lawmakers must find enough cuts in public spending to allow the debt ceiling to be raised. Two more months of uncertainty will prevent businesses and consumers from making spending decisions that would bolster the economic recovery.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">The devil is not so much in the detail of the arguments to come as the big picture that frames the debilitating running debate.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">While the difference between the sides is ostensibly over taxes and public spending and borrowing, the more profound division is over where government should begin and end. For many of the Republican Party’s Tea Party insurgents, the choice is even more fundamental: whether there should be a government at all. Their unbending position, demanding an ever-diminishing role for the federal government, has levied an enormous unnecessary cost on everyone else.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">Since Republicans regained control of the House in the 2010 midterms, when the Tea Party tide was in full force, they have attempted to freeze the size of government, coincidentally putting a brake on economic recovery. They have vetoed attempts at further economic stimulus, encouraged America’s economy to be downgraded by the ratings agencies by threatening not to extend the debt ceiling, and tried to veto any and every tax increase in the fiscal cliff talks.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">Their aim is to shrink government by starving it of funds. Such uncompromising absolutism has led to the dampening of business confidence and investment that would have created jobs.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">It is not just the economy that has suffered from the absolute positions held by the anti-government rump in the GOP. Their insistence that the Founding Fathers intended us to be allowed to carry guns of any sort, including the rapid-fire assault weapon that <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248651/Connecticut-school-shooting-Pictures-children-killed-rampage-revealed.html">killed 20 children and six adults</a> in Newtown, CT, last month, continues to hamper attempts to curb the nation’s murderous gun violence. Ghosts from the 18th century are preying on our schoolchildren, abetted by those who believe that compromise on amending our gun laws is surrendering to the forces of big government. Such unbending absolutism costs human lives.</span></blockquote>
Are the Koch Brothers and their unending quest for power over today's Republican Party payback for President Reagan kicking out the John Birchers who their father helped found? Would they be that shallow? Since the John Birchers have been brought back in the Republican Party, I believe they would. Some on the right call the <a href="http://www.politicalstew.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=113827" target="_blank">Tea Party movement the new John Birchers</a> which should give everyone pause. <br />
<br />
This <a href="http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/01/5-reasons-why-america-has-a-republican-problem.html#.UO12wYLTzIR.twitter" target="_blank">excerpted article</a> illustrates the five reasons why America today has a Republican problem which is caused IMO by the Koch's Tea Party and Americans for Prosperity who are out front while the Koch's and other wealthy donors stay behind the scenes pulling strings:<br />
<blockquote>
<b><a href="http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/01/5-reasons-why-america-has-a-republican-problem.html#.UO12wYLTzIR.twitter" target="_blank">5 reasons why America has a Republican problem</a></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<abbr class="date time published" title="2013-01-09T08:23:38-0500">January 9, 2013</abbr> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>And as long as the “carried interest” loophole gives millionaire hedge fund managers a massive tax break, we have a revenue problem, too</b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(snip) </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />
<strong>1. The Republicans’ problem is that the deficit is shrinking too fast. That’s why they want to act now to gut Medicare and Social Security while they have the chance.</strong> FACT: <a href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/11/about-that-ballooning-deficit/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">The federal deficit has fallen faster over the past three years than it has in any such period since World War II</a>. This fact blows away every Republican talking point because it points out 1) <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/barack-obama/obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/" target="_blank">George W. Bush created the trillion dollar deficit</a> that the GOP blames on this president, 2) under <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/" target="_blank">President Obama federal spending has grown less than any president since Eisenhower</a> and 3) our recovery, which is much better than most of the world’s, is shrinking the deficit. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>2. President Obama has already signed $2.3 trillion in deficit cuts, 3/4 of it spending cuts.</strong>Until the Bush Tax Cuts expired and Republicans were forced to deal with revenue increases, <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2013/01/08/49137/the-deficit-reduction-we-have-achieved-so-far/" target="_blank">President Obama has cut the Bush deficit entirely with spending cuts</a>. These <a href="http://wonkwire.com/2012/11/15/spending-cuts-hurt-less-than-tax-increases/" target="_blank">spending cuts hurt the economy much more than tax increases</a>, especially tax increases on the rich. <b>This seems to be the GOP plan: </b><em style="font-weight: bold;">Keep the deficit crisis going to cut the parts of government we don’t like. And keep saying spending is the problem so you don’t have to cuts <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/time-to-close-the-carried-interest-loophole/2012/02/07/gIQAJokKxQ_story.html" target="_blank">ridiculous tax loopholes that give away billions </a>to those who need it least.</em> (my bold)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/01/5-reasons-why-america-has-a-republican-problem.html/deficitreduction_fig1-1" rel="attachment wp-att-28463"><img alt="DeficitReduction_fig1-1" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-28463" height="342" src="http://www.eclectablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DeficitReduction_fig1-1.png" width="310" /></a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/01/5-reasons-why-america-has-a-republican-problem.html/deficitreduction_fig1-1" rel="attachment wp-att-28463"></a><strong>3. We have two long-term problems — long-term unemployment and long-term debt. And only one matters right now.</strong>Anyone who tells you that America is like Greece is insulting your intelligence. We have no worries about paying our debt. Republicans have claimed for over 4 years now that borrowing would cause rampant inflation and the world would eventually stop buying our debt. The opposite happened. We will have a serious debt problem in a decade or two as baby boomers retire and live long, expensive lives. And it will be much worse if we don’t deal with our real crisis. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Our much more serious problem is long-term unemployment. <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/01/05/168666356/long-term-unemployed-seem-to-be-staying-that-wayhttp://www.npr.org/2013/01/05/168666356/long-term-unemployed-seem-to-be-staying-that-way" target="_blank">Nearly 5 million Americans have been out of work for over 27 weeks</a>. The longer you’ve been out of a job, the harder it is to find a new one and the less likely it is you’ll ever make up the earning and salary growth you lost. Poorer and middle class Americans will have to work harder and be more dependent on the government. In a sane society, we would be doing everything we could to get these people working, even direct government hiring if necessary. But the future of these Americans is being sacrificed to the Republican agenda. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>4.</strong> <a href="http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-pushes-his-protectionist-line-on-health-care-again" target="_blank"><strong>If our health care costs were in line with costs in other countries, we would be looking at budget surpluses, not deficits.</strong></a>We already pay for each other’s insurance, <a href="http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/02/ronald-reagan-socialized-medicine-in.html" target="_blank">just in the dumbest possible way</a>. For what we pay for health care we could be covering every American for less if we weren’t forced to deal with the Republican Party’s willingness to prioritize corporations over people. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>5. <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/closing-the-deficit-is-painless-2012-12" target="_blank">Fixing the deficit is easy. Just put people back to work.</a></strong>The Bush tax breaks were designed to solve a problem that Republicans had been avoiding for years — a balanced budget. When you have a balanced budget, you can’t cut the programs you don’t like just because you don’t like them. So create a deficit and start cutting! The bulk of our deficit comes from purposely dumb Bush decisions and can easily be rectified by putting people back to work. The fact that we are talking about cutting instead of jobs is a tribute to just how bad our Republican problem really is.</blockquote>
It is sad in my world, when a progressive website makes more sense then conservative ones. They have the facts not spin/lies of Fox News, Rush, Hannity, Beck, et al who are not giving us the truth. What do this group of pundits hope to accomplish? Keep more of their millions while making more off the backs of the middle class? That is as good of explanation as any because the Fox and talk show rhetoric and lies are so far over the top don't see how anyone can believe them. Worst part is that they say something on the air and some of today's Republicans go mouth their words. <br />
<br />
Beyond disgusting that many of the Republicans in Congress are devoid of common sense today as they are afraid of their own shadows not wanting to be primaried by the likes of the Koch Brothers, Club for Growth, and others who want them to bend to their will or else. No backbones to stand up and tell the hard right groups to shove it and actually vote for the people of America not worrying about being defeated for reelection. Many of us would roll up our sleeves to help honest Republican candidates who stand up to the fringe movement get reelected but those Republicans are few and far between as most bow to the Koch Brothers and other wealthy donors.<br />
<br />
Can the Republican Party be Saved? Not until we get some actual leaders with backbones who tell the fringe and hard right to take a hike because it is obvious that the two sides cannot co-exist. It came out yesterday that Democrats are now the majority of Americans which should shock no one. Not hard to understand why when lifelong Republicans like me are considering becoming a Democrat. For now staying to see what happens with the GOP. <br />
<br />
One thing is definite -- will not support or work for current Republicans to take back the Senate or keep the House in 2014 as they have not earned that right with their obstructionism which has hurt the economy and the American people. This group of GOP leaders in Congress has proven they are wimps with no backbones who are afraid to stand up to wealthy donors and the hard right. Time for new leadership in 2014 to work across the aisle to get the Country back on track as well as the Republican Party.<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-76037626670647049262013-01-08T14:18:00.000-06:002013-01-08T14:18:08.397-06:00Texas Tea Party Senator Cruz is Calling for a Government Shutdown After ONLY Four Days in Office<i><b>Way to go Texas -- you have hit a new low in electing a Senator!</b></i><br />
<br />
Texas sent Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz to DC who in less than a week in the US Senate is trying to rewrite history along with proving he is going to be an obstructionist by talking about they need to shut down Government like in the 90's. American people were furious at Republicans for shutting down Government in 1995-96 which seems lost in his comments. Sen Cruz also forgets that Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress which led to the six-day <a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/Government-Shutdowns.htm" target="_blank">shutdown costing taxpayers</a> about $800 million after a stalemate with Pres Clinton. <br />
<br />
GOP had just taken over, elected Gingrich Speaker, and became very arrogant thinking they were completely in charge and what they wanted was going to happen. How did that work out? That is $800M that the Government had to pay out thanks to the stubbornness of Republicans in Congress led by then Speaker Gingrich and stubbornness President Clinton holding firm on his budget of excess spending. Two hard headed people ended up costing the taxpayers. Both sides over the years have forgotten that when they do something stupid, the taxpayers get the bill. <a href="http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projects/debt/governmentshutdown.html" target="_blank">Twice the Government was shut down</a> under Clinton:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From November 14 through November 19, 1995 and from December 16, 1995 to January 6, 1996 the U.S. government was shut down as a result of a budgetary impasse between Congress and the White House. The shutdown was precipitated by a dispute between Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich over domestic spending cuts in the fiscal year 1996 budget and resulted in a bipartisan agreement to balance the budget in seven years' time.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Politically speaking, President Clinton got the better of the 1995-96 government shutdown. Whereas Gingrich expected the public to side with the Republican Party during the dispute, opinion polls showed that a majority of Americans felt that the impasse had been the result of Republican obstinacy. However, the 1995-96 government shutdown demonstrated the costs of divided government and, more importantly, shifted the political discourse to the right. Although the budget deal restored many of the Republican's proposed cuts in domestic spending, Clinton adopted a more centrist position for the remainder of his presidency. Clinton's move to the right was exemplified in his State of the Union Address of January 27, 1996, in which he declared that "the era of big government is over." </blockquote>
Unlike the 90's where we actually had some rational senators on both sides, today the GOP is going into negotiations saying they are not budging while starting to talk about shutting down Government. The GOP House in 1995 was convinced on the second shutdown that it would enable them to take out Clinton to put a Republican in the White House but being the experienced politico that he was, he used it to his advantage moving to the center winning reelection. With an agreement between Clinton and Congress in place to reign in spending, the US had a balanced budget for the first time in a long time. Republicans then went from controlling spending during the Clinton years to runaway spending on new programs and earmarks during the Bush 43 years costing them the Congress in 2006.<br />
<br />
Senator Cruz has obviously not figured out that circumstances are different today and the American people thanks to the internet are much smarter on how Government operates. President Obama was reelected by over five million votes and has the support of the American people. In the Senate where the Democrats had to defend 23 seats they picked up two seats while Republicans lost two seats out of only ten they had to defend. The House lost the popular vote by of one million but retained control because of gerrymandering but still ended up losing seats. In 1994, the Republican Party was in a very strong position just having taken over the Congress after years of Democrat control, but Republicans overplayed their hand and helped re-elect Bill Clinton because of their stubbornness. <br />
<br />
We are seeing that stubbornness once again with the 'my way or no way' stance which lost them support in the 90's and is losing them even more support today. The GOP Congress seems to have no intention of working with President Obama as some are still acting like he is not the legitimate President. The American people spoke in 2012 and many in the Republican Party did not hear what was said. Instead we have more hard right Senators making dumb comments on hard right talk radio. Does Cruz think this is going to get him support across the Country so he can run for President as we are already seeing mentioned? He is already calling for a 1995 style shutdown showing that he is controlled by the Koch Bros Tea Party faction along with their groups. This is insanity talk IMHO:<br />
<blockquote>
<b><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/07/1406011/cruz-calls-for-shutdown-default/">Republican Senator Calls For Repeat Of 1995 Government Shutdown: ‘If We Hold Strong We Can Do That Again’</a></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
By <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/author/scott-keyes/">Scott Keyes</a> posted from <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/issue/">ThinkProgress Economy</a> on Jan 7, 2013 at 3:22 pm<br />
Tea Party-aligned Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), within days of being sworn in, is already calling for a government shutdown unless Congress agrees to massive budget cuts. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
During an appearance on Mark Levin’s radio show Friday, Cruz waxed poetic about the last time Republicans successfully shut down the government in 1995, arguing that a shutdown leads to better economic policies. “Because Republicans stood strong in 1995, we saw year after year of balanced budgets,” Cruz said. He went on to call for a repeat as Republicans hold the nation’s fiscal solvency hostage in the debt ceiling fight next month. “If we hold strong we can do that again,” the Texas Senator declared: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
CRUZ: What would happen if the debt ceiling isn’t raised is it would be a partial government shutdown. We’ve seen this before, we saw this in 1995, when Republicans in the House shut down the government. What happened was it was a partial shutdown, there was some political cost to be paid but at the end of the day,<strong> because Republicans stood strong in 1995, we saw year after year of balanced budgets</strong> and some of the most fiscally-responsible policies Congress has produced in the modern-era. <strong>If we hold strong we can do that again.</strong> It just comes down to Republicans. Are we willing to stand strong and face the wrath of the mainstream media criticizing us and the president saying nasty things about us?</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Excerpt: Read More at <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/07/1406011/cruz-calls-for-shutdown-default/" target="_blank">Think Progress</a></blockquote>
Not to realize that Republicans do not control the Senate like they did in 1995 shows a lack of common sense and maturity in my book which I have come to expect out of Tea Party office holders. They have zero common sense as witnessed with Rep Bachmann submitting a bill this session to repeal Obamacare that has already cost the taxpayers $50M with the other 33 repeal bills. Bachmann is the example of a gerrymandered district and then she only barely won with a ton of money and a challenger who had never run for office. Bet she loses in 2014 with the Democrats finally waking up to the fact they have to nominate good candidates to take out Tea Party candidates.<br />
<br />
Came out yesterday that only <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/tea-party-poll_n_2425833.html?utm_hp_ref=politics" target="_blank">8% identify themselves as Tea Party</a><b> </b>today? We are not talking about a liberal poll -- we are talking about a Rasmussen Poll which is slanted right:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Tea Party is more unpopular than ever before, according to a <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2013/just_8_now_say_they_are_tea_party_members" target="_hplink"><b>Rasmussen poll</b></a> released Monday, with just three in 10 voters holding favorable views of the movement. Half of respondents said they view the party unfavorably. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Those numbers represent a considerable dive in support since the Tea Party's heyday in 2009, when a majority of voters rated it favorably. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Many of the Senate challengers with Tea Party backing <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/tea-party-election-results_n_2084506.html" target="_hplink">were defeated in 2012</a>, and the movement suffered another PR blow after a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26/dick-armey-freedomworks_n_2364986.html" target="_hplink">falling out</a> among the leadership of the Tea Party group FreedomWorks. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Although most members of the House's Tea Party Caucus <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-08/tea-party-freshmen-to-become-sophomores-by-keeping-house-seats.html" target="_hplink">were reelected in November</a>, the group had some high-profile losses, including the defeats of former Reps. Joe Walsh and Allen West. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus, barely retained her seat. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The movement is now widely seen by the public as declining, according to the Rasmussen poll -- 56 percent of voters said the Tea Party became less influential over the past year, and just 8 percent said they identified as part of the Tea Party movement.</blockquote>
With all the background that the Tea Party is losing its support in the Country, along comes the new Texas Senator Cruz spouting off about shutting down government as a member of the minority in the Senate. This says to most people with common sense that some Republicans in the Congress have no intention of working with the President and are going to go use the same obstructionist tactics as before. That obstructionism is leading to new rules on filibusters which have a good chance of passing. <br />
<br />
Blame the media for part of this with even covering what a Freshman Senator has to say and then saying he could run for President in 2016. How stupid has the inside the beltway media become? The GOP pushes a narrative and facts don't seem to matter to many of today's political reporters as they report the GOP narrative. <br />
<br />
Where is leadership in the Senate to tell a Freshman to learn the ropes before spouting off -- MIA. Minority Leader McConnell seems to be more worried about his own reelection and if Ashley Judd is going to run against him, then actually running the GOP Caucus. <br />
<br />
GOP lost Senator DeMint as a member of the Senate Tea Party when he resigned to head a think tank but gained Cruz who may end up being much more annoying and obnoxious. DeMint had experience in the House and spent time in the Senate before he started speaking out and then forming his PAC to elect Tea Party candidates. Cruz hasn't even been there a week before speaking out on shutting down the Government which I guess you could say is typical of what the Country has come to expect of elected Tea Party conservatives. At one time the conservatives had principled ideas but today it is about raising money off of ludicrous statements and being obstructionists. They want cuts but mention defense and they run for the hills screeching like a ban-chi. <br />
<br />
Voting against Hurricane Sandy relief did me in completely along with not wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy. Same group that spent $50M to try and repeal Obamacare. The lack of caring for others out of a lot of today's Republicans in Congress has made me lose what little respect I had left for the GOP. These GOP members of Congress who voted against Hurricane Sandy relief didn't hesitate to vote for relief for their own state in the past. Guess they only believe in relief for a red state today -- blue states need not apply seems to be the message they are sending.<br />
<br />
Do the Country a favor and vote out the Tea Party in 2014 to return common sense to the Congress. <br />
<br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-84440530029289466402013-01-07T12:05:00.001-06:002013-01-07T15:36:24.571-06:00Obama Nominates Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to be SecDef Putting his Stamp on Foreign PolicyAfter spending the end of last week in Dallas for the Cotton Bowl, visiting the Kennedy Museum at the Book Depository, and discovering the sports media didn't quite get the real essence of the debacle that is Jerry's World, I am back. <br />
<br />
This was my fourth visit to the Kennedy Museum at the Book Depository but had not been there for several years and was surprised at the subtle changes. It was nice to find out that Live Oak Trees grow rapidly -- not the case of ones we had in TX but good cover the story they were presenting. Left the Museum feeling more convinced that we don't have the truth about the Kennedy Assassination even today which should be an indictment of the Nixon Cabal that took over from the corrupt LBJ and his goons. <br />
<br />
What bothered me the most was the deja vu feeling I had when looking at the hatred toward Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy by the John Birchers and Minuteman -- they were opposed to the efforts to desegregate the public schools and the universities.It sounds like same group of haters who vilify Hispanics/Blacks/Gays/Women and
believe Obama is the anti-christ. Only difference is that they were Democrats back in the 60's and Republicans today.<br />
<br />
That same military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about, and JFK ran up against who wanted to go to war in Vietnam, is still in operation today pushing for no cuts in the defense department and for us to attack Iran in order to take out their nuclear capability and then on to Syria. Some of these people have been advocating nuclear war with first Russia and now Iran since the early 60's. The farther we went through the Museum, the more you became aware that we are seeing strands of that same mentality that existed in the 60's with the hawk crowd who are wealthy, get even wealthier from defense and oil and gas when you go to war, and think nothing of sending young men and now women into war. Frightening to wake up and be back with the same mentality of the Koch Brothers father who helped found the John Birch Society and Ezra Taft Benson who were good friends. Benson hated Eisenhower and went on to lead the Mormon Church while keeping in contact with the John Birchers. <br />
<br />
Now with the election over and Obama about to be sworn in for four more years, he is now going forward with his choices to lead his foreign policy team of Kerry (State), Hagel (SecDef), and Brennan (CIA). Hagel is being opposed by the same cabal that got us into Iraq where we had no reason to be except a lot of defense contractors became even wealthier. Now that same group wants to attack Syria? Obama has other ideas and is nominating Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a one-time Republican who dared to criticize the Bush Administration for its Iraq policy, as the new Secretary of Defense. Hagel essentially became a man without a Party after refusing to endorse John McCain for President with Palin as his VP. Sound like he is pretty smart to me.<br />
<br />
As a Vietnam foot soldier veteran, he saw the war up close and personal and it has affected his thinking when it comes to going into war when you are not attacked. I fully support Chuck Hagel. One thing I have admired about Hagel over the years is he is outspoken and not for sale which cannot be said about a lot of members of Congress today. I have been very pleasantly surprised at how well SecDef Panetta has done but it is time for a change and for Obama to name his own person not a Clintonite.<br />
<br />
A new day is dawning in the Obama Administration as we are about to see a different four years then the first four years. Looks to me like it is only going to get better as Hagel understands the Defense Department and that we cannot afford to spend recklessly like we have been doing since 2001 driving up the deficit following 9/11. The GOP foreign-policy establishment is about to get their heads handed to them and IMHO why Bolton, Cheney, and others are fighting the Hagel nomination. Their Golden Goose is about to get its wings clipped.<br />
<br />
This article from The Daily Beast by Peter Beinart is excerpted -- the original article is lengthy but well worth the read to illustrate what is happening in DC with the Hagel nomination being challenged by Republicans in the Senate:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What makes Hagel so important, and so threatening to the Republican foreign-policy elite, is that he is one of the few prominent Republican-aligned politicians and commentators (George Will and Francis Fukuyama are others, but such voices are rare) who was intellectually changed by Iraq. And Hagel was changed, in large measure, because he bore within him intellectual (and physical) scar tissue from Vietnam. As my former colleague John Judis captured brilliantly in a 2007 <i>New Republic</i> <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/look-back-anger" target="_blank">profile</a>, the Iraq War sparked something visceral in Hagel, as the former Vietnam rifleman realized that, once again, detached and self-interested elites were sending working-class kids like himself to die in a war they couldn’t honestly defend. It is certainly true that some politicians who served in Vietnam—for instance, John McCain—did not react to Iraq that way. But it is also true that the fact that so few American politicians and pundits lived the kind of wartime hell Hagel endured made it easier for them to pass through the Iraq years unscathed. It’s no coincidence that the other senator most deeply enraged by Iraq was ex-Marine James Webb, another former hawkish Republican who <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601891.html" target="_blank">saw the war</a> through his own personal Vietnam prism.</blockquote>
After reading that paragraph from the Beinart article, I was thinking back to former Secretary of State Colin Powell who attempted to bring some reason and common sense to the Pres George W Bush Administration but he had to go against the Rumsfeld/Cheney hawks who eventually got us into Iraq with bad intelligence information that was presented to the United Nations. President Eisenhower was right to warn Americans about the growing military/industrial complex as we are still seeing that growth today. If Romney would have been elected, the growth would have gone unabated and bankrupted other programs like social security and medicare which this group of Republicans don't see as necessary. <br />
<br />
It is a fact in the early 90's the mergers in the defense industry were so prevalent that the checks and balances that existed between mid size companies and the giants completely disappeared. Never could figure out why Clinton along with Bush 41 pushed all the mergers giving huge payouts to executives of the companies to merge. Today those merged positions make well over $20M a year which is obscene. Why did the President of Lockheed Martin get a $2M pay raise last year when the F-35 is behind schedule and over budget? You could say that is private industry but the money to pay the CEO comes in large part from defense contracts which are funded by the US taxpayers.<br />
<br />
Fully support Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense as he brings a perspective to the position that has long been missing -- actual boots on the ground experience. He is not a hawk on war but he is also not an isolationist. With the people who are opposing Hagel, I am supporting him even more believing that President Obama has made an excellent choice for Secretary of Defense that he is announcing today.<br />
<br />
Will President Obama finally be able to put his stamp on his foreign policy with the nomination of John Kerry as Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, and John Brennan as CIA Director? Sure looks like that is the Obama plan and one we endorse:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<b><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/why-hagel-matters.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet" target="_blank">Why Hagel Matters</a></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span class="byline byline-style-a">by <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/peter-beinart.html" property="foaf:publications" rel="author"> Peter Beinart </a> </span> <time class="timestamp" datetime="2013-01-07T09:45:00.000Z" property="dc:created" pubdate="pubdate">Jan 7, 2013 4:45 AM EST</time></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If media reports are true, Barack Obama will soon nominate Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense. If so, it may prove the most consequential foreign-policy appointment of his presidency. Because the struggle over Hagel is a struggle over whether Obama can change the terms of foreign-policy debate.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
(snip)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<time class="timestamp" datetime="2013-01-07T09:45:00.000Z" property="dc:created" pubdate="pubdate"> </time>If the former senator is confirmed over Republican objections as Obama’s new secretary of defense, it could signal the beginning of a new era in American foreign policy, says Peter Beinart.<br />
<br />
What the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/What%20the%20Republican%20foreign-policy%20establishment%20fears%20is%20that%20with%20Hagel%20as%20secretary%20of%20defense,%20it%20will%20be%20impossible%20for%20Obama%20to%20minimize%20the%20dangers%20of%20war%20with%20Iran,%20as%20George%20W.%20Bush%20minimized%20the%20dangers%20of%20war%20with%20Iraq.%20Hagel%20would%20be%20to%20the%20Obama%20administration%20what%20Dwight%20Eisenhower%20was%20in%20the%201950s,%20what%20Colin%20Powell%20was%20in%20the%201990s,%20and%20what,%20to%20some%20degree,%20ex-Mossad%20head%20Meir%20Dagan%20was%20in%20the%20Netanyahu%20government,%20the%20military%20man%20who%20bluntly%20reminds%20his%20colleagues%20that%20war,%20once%20unleashed,%20cannot%20be%20easily%20controlled.%20%E2%80%9COnce%20you%20start%E2%80%9D%20a%20war%20with%20Iran,%20Hagel%20told%20the%20Atlantic%20Council%20in%202010,%20%E2%80%9Cyou%E2%80%99d%20better%20be%20prepared%20to%20find%20100,000%20troops,%20because%20it%20may%20take%20that.%E2%80%9D%20You%20can%E2%80%99t%20say%20%E2%80%9Cit%E2%80%99ll%20be%20a%20limited%20warfare.%20I%20don%E2%80%99t%20think%20any%20nation%20can%20ever%20go%20into%20it%20that%20way.%E2%80%9D%20For%20Hagel%E2%80%99s%20ex-friends%20in%20the%20Republican%20foreign-policy%20class,%20such%20a%20statement%20is%20kryptonite,%20because%20they%20know%20that%20given%20the%20American%20public%E2%80%99s%20weariness%20of%20war,%20a%20president%20who%20outlined%20the%20risks%20that%20way%20would%20have%20trouble%20gaining%20popular%20support.%20It%E2%80%99s%20also%20likely%20that%20Hagel%E2%80%99s%20position%20would%20be%20reinforced%20by%20the%20leaders%20of%20the%20uniformed%20military,%20some%20of%20whom%20have%20already%20expressed%20skepticism%20about%20bombing%20Iran.%20%20%20More%20generally,%20Hagel%E2%80%99s%20Republican%20critics%20realize%20that%20Iraq%20has%20changed%20his%20view%20of%20American%20power.%20To%20call%20Hagel%20an%20isolationist%20is%20silly.%20Unlike%20Pat%20Buchanan%20or%20Ron%20Paul,%20he%20is%20enthusiastic%20about%20international%20institutions%20and%20foreign%20aid.%20But%20Iraq%20and%20Afghanistan%20have%20convinced%20Hagel%20that%20boosting%20American%20military%20spending,%20and%20extending%20America%E2%80%99s%20global%20military%20footprint,%20can%20weaken%20national%20security%20if%20they%20drive%20America%20deeper%20into%20debt.%20Like%20his%20hero,%20Eisenhower,%20who%20slashed%20defense%20spending%20because,%20according%20to%20his%20Treasury%20secretary,%20he%20%E2%80%9Cfeared%20deficits%20almost%20more%20than%20he%20feared%20the%20communists,%E2%80%9D%20Hagel%20believes%20the%20defense%20budget%20must%20%E2%80%9Cbe%20pared%20down,%E2%80%9D%20because%20he%20refuses%20to%20divorce%20the%20conversation%20about%20military%20spending%20from%20the%20conversation%20about%20fiscal%20solvency.%20Unlike%20the%20Republican%20foreign-policy%20elite%20who%20for%20eight%20years%20cheered%20as%20the%20Bush%20administration%20charged%20its%20expansive%20%E2%80%9Cwar%20on%20terror%E2%80%9D%20to%20the%20nation%E2%80%99s%20credit%20card,%20Hagel%20does%20not%20view%20substantial%20cuts%20to%20the%20Bush-era%20defense%20budget%20as%20a%20retreat%20from%20American%20global%20power.%20To%20the%20contrary,%20he%20views%20them%20as%20essential%20to%20restoring%20the%20economic%20strength%20that%20must%20undergird%20that%20power.%20In%20that%20way%20as%20well,%20Hagel%E2%80%99s%20insistence%20on%20learning%20the%20lessons%20of%20the%20past%2010%20years%20would%20threaten%20the%20historical%20amnesia%20that%20governs%20Republican%20foreign%20policy.%20%20%20But%20that%E2%80%99s%20only%20half%20the%20story.%20Understanding%20why%20Hagel%E2%80%99s%20nomination%20could%20change%20the%20terms%20of%20foreign-policy%20debate%20also%20requires%20understanding%20the%20state%20of%20foreign-policy%20discourse%20in%20the%20Democratic%20Party.%20If%20the%20defining%20characteristic%20of%20Republican%20foreign-policy%20discourse%20in%20Washington%20today%20is%20amnesia,%20the%20defining%20Democratic%20characteristic%20is%20timidity.%20And%20Hagel%20would%20challenge%20that%20as%20well.%20%20%20In%20the%20Democratic%20Party%20today,%20ascending%20to%20a%20top%20foreign-policy%20job%20is%20like%20ascending%20to%20a%20federal%20judgeship:%20the%20less%20you%20say%20that%20anyone%20could%20possibly%20disagree%20with,%20the%20better%20your%20chances.%20Partly,%20this%20is%20a%20residue%20of%20the%20hoary,%20and%20still%20extant,%20Democratic%20fear%20of%20being%20deemed%20insufficiently%20tough%20by%20the%20Republican%20right.%20During%20the%20Bush%20years,%20I%20attended%20some%20brainstorming%20sessions%20convened%20by%20Democratic-leaning%20think%20thanks%20and%20foundations%20aimed%20at%20rethinking%20party%20foreign%20policy,%20and%20what%20struck%20me%20was%20the%20degree%20to%20which%20Fox%20News%20had%20gotten%20inside%20people%E2%80%99s%20heads.%20It%20was%20virtually%20impossible%20to%20have%20a%20blue-sky%20conversation%20about,%20for%20instance,%20how%20seriously%20people%20took%20the%20threat%20from%20Al%20Qaeda%20terror,%20or%20whether%20they%20believed%20it%20possible%20to%20deter%20a%20nuclear%20Iran,%20without%20the%20conversation%20getting%20sidetracked%20by%20a%20discussion%20of%20whether%20even%20entertaining%20such%20questions%20was%20politically%20viable.%20%20%20In%20recent%20years,%20as%20the%20GOP%E2%80%99s%20post-Vietnam%20foreign-policy%20advantage%20has%20disappeared,%20Democratic%20fears%20of%20right-wing%20attack%20have%20eased%20somewhat.%20But%20the%20habits%20of%20caution,%20and%20the%20bias%20against%20provocative%20and%20independent%20thought,%20remains.%20Consider%20the%20fate%20of%20Kenneth%20Pollack%20and%20Michael%20O%E2%80%99Hanlon,%20two%20Brookings%20Institution%20scholars%20once%20considered%20top%20contenders%20for%20senior%20foreign-policy%20jobs%20in%20a%20Democratic%20administration.%20Instead,%20both%20men%20have%20remained%20at%20Brookings%20while%20their%20contemporaries%20cycle%20in%20and%20out%20of%20government.%20The%20reason?%20Pollack%20and%20O%E2%80%99Hanlon%20vocally%20supported%20invading%20Iraq,%20the%20former%20in%20a%20readable%20and%20influential%20book%20and%20the%20latter%20in%20a%20blunt%20interview%20with%20Bill%20O%E2%80%99Reilly%20on%20Fox.%20That%20might%20make%20sense%20had%20the%20people%20who%20beat%20Pollack%20and%20O%E2%80%99Hanlon%20out%20for%20top%20jobs%20been%20vocal%20Iraq%20War%20opponents.%20But%20for%20the%20most%20part,%20Pollack%20and%20O%E2%80%99Hanlon%20were%20bested%20not%20by%20people%20who%20clearly%20opposed%20invading%20Iraq%20but%20by%20people%20who%20took%20no%20clear%20public%20position%20one%20way%20or%20another.%20That%E2%80%99s%20true%20of%20U.N.%20Ambassador%20Susan%20Rice,%20who%20conducted%20four%20interviews%20with%20National%20Public%20Radio%20in%20the%20six%20months%20leading%20up%20to%20the%20war%20in%20which%20she%20made%20many%20sage%20comments%20but%20never%20revealed%20whether%20she%20supported%20the%20invasion.%20And%20it%E2%80%99s%20true%20of%20Hagel%E2%80%99s%20competitor%20for%20secretary%20of%20defense,%20Mich%C3%A8le%20Flournoy,%20a%20smart,%20well-qualified,%20decent%20woman%20who%20on%20March%204,%202003%E2%80%9415%20days%20before%20the%20war%20began%E2%80%94conducted%20an%20online%20chat%20about%20Iraq%20with%20The%20Washington%20Post.%20I%20defy%20anyone%20to%20read%20it%20and%20determine%20whether%20she%20supported%20the%20war.%20%20%20When%20Obama%20won%20the%20presidency,%20some%20hoped%20that%20his%20example%20might%20alter%20this%20culture%20of%20caution.%20Obama%20had%20defeated%20Hillary%20Clinton,%20after%20all,%20in%20part%20because%20he%20made%20the%20risky%20decision%20to%20publicly%20oppose%20the%20Iraq%20War%20at%20a%20time%20when%20most%20other%20Democratic%20politicians%20were%20either%20supporting%20it%20or%20keeping%20their%20heads%20down.%20Early%20in%20the%20presidential%20campaign,%20Obama%20had%20also%20made%20unusually%20candid%20statements%20about%20Israel,%20noting%20that%20discussions%20of%20Israeli%20policy%20were%20%E2%80%9Cmuch%20more%20open%20...%20in%20Israel%20than%20they%20are%20sometimes%20here%20in%20the%20United%20States%E2%80%9D%20and%20that%20%E2%80%9Cthere%20is%20a%20strain%20within%20the%20pro-Israel%20community%20that%20says%20unless%20you%20adopt%20an%20unwavering%20pro-Likud%20approach%20to%20Israel%20that%20you%E2%80%99re%20anti-Israel.%E2%80%9D%20%20%20But%20ironically,%20the%20dynamic%20proved%20almost%20exactly%20the%20opposite.%20Precisely%20because%20Obama,%20from%20the%20very%20beginning,%20was%20considered%20vaguely%20edgy%20on%20foreign%20policy,%20he%20surrounded%20himself%20with%20advisers%20who%20gave%20him%20political%20cover.%20Thus,%20during%20the%202008%20general%20election%20campaign,%20Obama%20made%20Dennis%20Ross,%20the%20Democratic%20Mideast%20hand%20most%20trusted%20by%20the%20%E2%80%9Cpro-Israel%E2%80%9D%20right,%20his%20main%20spokesman%20on%20the%20issue%20rather%20than%20Daniel%20Kurtzer,%20who%20had%20endorsed%20Obama%20earlier%20but%20whose%20frank%20opposition%20to%20settlement%20growth%20as%20ambassador%20to%20Israel%20had%20made%20him%20less%20trusted%20in%20Jewish%20establishment%20circles.%20Or%20consider%20the%20Obama%20campaign%E2%80%99s%20treatment%20of%20former%20Clinton-administration%20national-security%20staffer%20Rob%20Malley.%20After%20leaving%20office,%20Malley%20had%20co-written%20a%20controversial%20essay%20arguing%20that%20Yasser%20Arafat%20was%20not%20solely%20to%20blame%20for%20the%20failure%20of%20the%202000%20Camp%20David%20peace%20talks%20and%20met%20(as%20a%20private%20citizen)%20with%20representatives%20of%20Hamas.%20In%20response,%20an%20Obama%20campaign%20aide%20privately%20pledged%20that%20Malley%20would%20not%20receive%20an%20administration%20job,%20and%20the%20campaign%20distributed%20an%20article%20by%20my%20old%20TNR%20boss%20Marty%20Peretz%20that%20praised%20Obama%20while%20calling%20Malley%20%E2%80%9Ca%20rabid%20hater%20of%20Israel.%E2%80%9D%20Malley%20discovered%20what%20the%20campaign%20had%20done%20when%20the%20mass%20email%20containing%20Peretz%E2%80%99s%20article%20arrived%20in%20his%20inbox.%20%20%20This%20pattern%20of%20surrounding%20himself%20with%20advisers%20more%20cautious%20than%20himself%20continued%20once%20Obama%20took%20office.%20He%20made%20Hillary%20Clinton%E2%80%94the%20woman%20whose%20foreign-policy%20views%20he%20had%20derided%20as%20cautious%20and%20conventional%20during%20the%20campaign%E2%80%94his%20secretary%20of%20state.%20As%20national-security%20advisor%20he%20chose%20James%20Jones,%20a%20man%20who%20had%20twice%20been%20offered%20the%20job%20of%20deputy%20secretary%20of%20state%20in%20the%20Bush%20administration.%20At%20the%20Pentagon%20he%20kept%20on%20the%20Bush%20administration%E2%80%99s%20Robert%20Gates.%20A%20month%20into%20Obama%E2%80%99s%20presidency,%20when%20Director%20of%20National%20Intelligence%20Dennis%20Blair%20selected%20Chas%20Freeman%20to%20head%20the%20National%20Intelligence%20Council,%20Freeman%20quickly%20came%20under%20attack,%20largely%20for%20a%20series%20of%20comments%20about%20Israeli%20policy%20that,%20while%20harshly%20critical,%20would%20not%20have%20been%20out%20of%20place%20in%20Haaretz.%20After%20two%20weeks%20without%20any%20show%20of%20support%20from%20the%20White%20House,%20Freeman%20withdrew%20his%20nomination.%20%20%20Partly%20as%20a%20result%20of%20these%20personnel%20decisions,%20Obama%E2%80%99s%20foreign%20policy%E2%80%94while%20often%20operationally%20skillful%E2%80%94has%20left%20unchallenged%20many%20of%20the%20assumptions%20made%20%E2%80%9Cmainstream%E2%80%9D%20by%20George%20W.%20Bush.%20Obama%20has%20never%20questioned%20Bush%E2%80%99s%20insistence%20that%20Iran%20cannot%20be%20deterred,%20even%20though%20deterrence%20was%20crucial%20to%20America%E2%80%99s%20strategy%20against%20China%20and%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20during%20the%20Cold%20War.%20He%20has%20abandoned%20his%20promise%20to%20close%20Guant%C3%A1namo%20Bay.%20And%20during%20the%20debate%20over%20the%20Afghan%20surge,%20when%20Obama%20grew%20skeptical%20of%20David%20Petraeus%E2%80%99s%20push%20for%2040,000%20new%20troops,%20his%20top%20cabinet%20secretaries%20constrained%20rather%20than%20encouraged%20his%20heretical%20thoughts.%20In%20his%20book%20Obama%E2%80%99s%20Wars,%20Bob%20Woodward%20reports%20that%20Hillary%20Clinton,%20along%20with%20Robert%20Gates,%20played%20a%20key%20role%20in%20%E2%80%9Cdiminishing%20the%20president%E2%80%99s%20running%20room.%20She%20had%20reduced%20his%20cover%20for%20any%20decision%20with%20significantly%20fewer%20troops.%E2%80%9D%20%20%20All%20of%20which%20makes%20the%20Hagel%20pick%20so%20important.%20Unlike%20John%20Kerry,%20whose%20political%20caution%20has%20smoothed%20the%20way%20for%20a%20virtually%20uncontested%20secretary-of-state%20nomination,%20Hagel%20says%20in%20public%20what%20others%20only%20say%20in%20private.%20In%20his%202005%20book,%20The%20Much%20Too%20Promised%20Land,%20former%20Clinton%20administration%20Middle%20East%20hand%20Aaron%20Miller%20notes%20that%20%E2%80%9Cof%20all%20my%20conversations%20[about%20the%20Israel%20debate%20in%20Congress],%20the%20one%20with%20Hagel%20stands%20apart%20for%20its%20honesty%20and%20clarity.%E2%80%9D%20That%E2%80%99s%20because%20when%20Hagel%20told%20Miller%20that%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20Jewish%20lobby%20intimidates%20a%20lot%20of%20people%20up%20here,%E2%80%9D%20he%20was%20saying%20the%20same%20thing%20that%20people%20who%20work%20in%20Congress%20and%20the%20executive%20branch%20say%20all%20the%20time.%20As%20Thomas%20Friedman%20has%20noted,%20%E2%80%9CI%20am%20certain%20that%20the%20vast%20majority%20of%20U.S.%20senators%20and%20policy%20makers%20quietly%20believe%20exactly%20what%20Hagel%20believes%20on%20Israel.%E2%80%9D%20But%20the%20operative%20word%20is%20quietly.%20I%E2%80%99ve%20also%20heard%20many%20government%20officials,%20some%20of%20them%20Jewish,%20say%20things%20similar%20to%20what%20Hagel%20is%20now%20being%20flayed%20for%20having%20told%20Miller.%20The%20difference%20is%20that%20those%20other%20officials%20first%20confirmed%20that%20they%20were%20speaking%20off%20the%20record.%20One%20even%20lowered%20his%20voice%20and%20closed%20the%20door.%20%20%20Hagel%E2%80%99s%20uncommon%20honesty%20isn%E2%80%99t%20restricted%20to%20Israel.%20Among%20the%20statements%20that%20critics%20now%20decry%20is%20Hagel%E2%80%99s%202007%20declaration%20that%20%E2%80%9CPeople%20say%20we%E2%80%99re%20not%20fighting%20for%20oil%20[in%20Iraq].%20Of%20course%20we%20are.%E2%80%9D%20In%20The%20Weekly%20Standard,%20Bill%20Kristol%20calls%20Hagel%E2%80%99s%20statement%20%E2%80%9Cvulgar%20and%20disgusting.%E2%80%9D%20What%20Kristol%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20note%20is%20that%20the%20same%20article%20that%20quotes%20Hagel%20also%20quotes%20noted%20radical%20Alan%20Greenspan%20saying%20virtually%20the%20same%20thing.%20The%20difference:%20Greenspan%20said%20it%20in%20his%20memoir,%20published%20once%20he%20was%20safely%20retired%20from%20government%20service.%20%20%20As%20John%20Judis%20notes,%20Hagel%20was%20considered%20a%20plausible%20Republican%20presidential%20candidate%20in%202008%20until%20his%20blunt%20criticism%20of%20the%20Bush%20administration%E2%80%99s%20Iraq%20policies%20ended%20his%20career%20in%20the%20GOP.%20He%20is,%20therefore,%20one%20of%20the%20very%20few%20public%20figures%20in%20recent%20memory%E2%80%94Joe%20Lieberman,%20whose%20blunt%20support%20for%20the%20Bush%20administration%E2%80%99s%20Iraq%20policies%20ended%20his%20career%20in%20the%20Democratic%20Party,%20is%20another%E2%80%94to%20have%20forfeited%20a%20national%20role%20in%20his%20political%20party%20because%20of%20his%20policy%20views.%20In%20the%20process,%20Hagel%20has%20incurred%20the%20wrath%20of%20the%20same%20hawkish%20%E2%80%9Cpro-Israel%E2%80%9D%20forces%20whose%20influence%20he%20was%20rash%20enough%20to%20acknowledge.%20He%20has%20done,%20in%20short,%20exactly%20what%20people%20who%20aspire%20to%20jobs%20like%20secretary%20of%20defense%20in%20Democratic%20administrations%20learn%20not%20to%20do.%20If%20Barack%20Obama%20nominates%20him%20anyway,%20it%20will%20be%20the%20greatest%20blow%20in%20years%20to%20the%20culture%20of%20timidity%20that%20dominates%20the%20Democratic%20foreign-policy%20class.%20As%20one%20former%20Obama%20administration%20official%20puts%20it,%20%E2%80%9CBefore,%20when%2025-year-olds%20came%20to%20me%20for%20career%20advice,%20I%20would%20tell%20them,%20%E2%80%98You%20should%20be%20very%20circumspect,%20very%20cautious.%E2%80%99%20After%20Hagel,%20I%20would%20say%20it%E2%80%99s%20OK%20to%20have%20strong,%20even%20divisive%20opinions.%E2%80%9D%20%20%20Barack%20Obama%20has%20been%20commander%20in%20chief%20for%20nearly%20four%20years,%20but%20in%20important%20ways,%20the%20Obama%20era%20in%20American%20foreign%20policy%20has%20not%20yet%20begun.%20It%20will%20begin%20when%20Democrats%20express%20their%20foreign-policy%20views%20as%20fearlessly%20as%20do%20their%20Republican%20counterparts%20and%20when%20those%20Republican%20counterparts%20can%20no%20longer%20impose%20their%20historical%20amnesia%20about%20the%20catastrophes%20of%20the%20last%2010%20years%20on%20public%20debate.%20It%20will%20begin%20when%20the%20American%20right%20can%20no%20longer%20marginalize%20public%20officials%20with%20whom%20it%20disagrees%20about%20Iran%20by%20hurling%20charges%20of%20anti-Semitism%20with%20a%20promiscuity%20that%20would%20make%20Al%20Sharpton%20blush.%20It%20will%20begin%20when%20Obama%20surrounds%20himself%20with%20advisers%20more%20interested%20in%20shifting%20the%20foreign-policy%20%E2%80%9Cmainstream%E2%80%9D%20than%20parroting%20it.%20It%20will%20begin%20when%20Obama%20declares%20independence%20from%20the%20Bush-era%20assumptions%20that%20have%20so%20far%20constrained%20his%20foreign%20policy.%20And%20with%20luck,%20we%20will%20one%20day%20look%20back%20upon%20Chuck%20Hagel%E2%80%99s%20nomination%20as%20the%20day%20it%20did." target="_blank">Republican foreign-policy establishment fears</a> is that with Hagel as secretary of defense, it will be impossible for Obama to minimize the dangers of war with Iran, as George W. Bush minimized the dangers of war with Iraq. Hagel would be to the Obama administration what Dwight Eisenhower was in the 1950s, what Colin Powell was in the 1990s, and what, to some degree, ex-Mossad head Meir Dagan was in the Netanyahu government, the military man who bluntly reminds his colleagues that war, once unleashed, cannot be easily controlled. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
“Once you start” a war with Iran, Hagel told the Atlantic Council in 2010, “you’d better be prepared to find 100,000 troops, because it may take that.” You can’t say “it’ll be a limited warfare. I don’t think any nation can ever go into it that way.” For Hagel’s ex-friends in the Republican foreign-policy class, such a statement is kryptonite, because they know that given the American public’s weariness of war, a president who outlined the risks that way would have trouble gaining popular support. It’s also likely that Hagel’s position would be reinforced by the leaders of the uniformed military, some of whom have already <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/israel-strike-iran-martin-dempsey_n_1286961.html" target="_blank">expressed</a> skepticism about bombing Iran. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
More generally, Hagel’s Republican critics realize that Iraq has changed his view of American power. To call Hagel an isolationist is silly. Unlike Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul, he is enthusiastic about <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090202856.html" target="_blank">international institutions</a> and <a href="http://borgen.squarespace.com/chuck-hagel-talks-foreign-aid/" target="_blank">foreign aid</a>. But Iraq and Afghanistan have convinced Hagel that boosting American military spending, and extending America’s global military footprint, can weaken national security if they drive America deeper into debt. Like his <a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/barbara-slavin/hagel-praises-obama-approach-to.html" target="_blank">hero</a>, Eisenhower, who slashed defense spending because, according to his Treasury secretary, he “feared deficits almost more than he feared the communists,” Hagel <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/17/hagel-a-dangerous-choice-for-defense/#ixzz2FNA00v00" target="_blank">believes</a> the defense budget must “be pared down,” because he refuses to divorce the conversation about military spending from the conversation about fiscal solvency. Unlike the Republican foreign-policy elite who for eight years cheered as the Bush administration charged its expansive “war on terror” to the nation’s credit card, Hagel does not view substantial cuts to the Bush-era defense budget as a retreat from American global power. To the contrary, he views them as essential to restoring the economic strength that must undergird that power. In that way as well, Hagel’s insistence on learning the lessons of the past 10 years would threaten the historical amnesia that governs Republican foreign policy. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
But that’s only half the story. Understanding why Hagel’s nomination could change the terms of foreign-policy debate also requires understanding the state of foreign-policy discourse in the Democratic Party. If the defining characteristic of Republican foreign-policy discourse in Washington today is amnesia, the defining Democratic characteristic is timidity. And Hagel would challenge that as well.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
In the Democratic Party today, ascending to a top foreign-policy job is like ascending to a federal judgeship: the less you say that anyone could possibly disagree with, the better your chances. Partly, this is a residue of the hoary, and still extant, Democratic fear of being deemed insufficiently tough by the Republican right. During the Bush years, I attended some brainstorming sessions convened by Democratic-leaning think thanks and foundations aimed at rethinking party foreign policy, and what struck me was the degree to which Fox News had gotten inside people’s heads. It was virtually impossible to have a blue-sky conversation about, for instance, how seriously people took the threat from Al Qaeda terror, or whether they believed it possible to deter a nuclear Iran, without the conversation getting sidetracked by a discussion of whether even entertaining such questions was politically viable. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
In recent years, as the GOP’s post-Vietnam foreign-policy advantage has disappeared, Democratic fears of right-wing attack have eased somewhat. But the habits of caution, and the bias against provocative and independent thought, remains. Consider the fate of Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon, two Brookings Institution scholars once considered top contenders for senior foreign-policy jobs in a Democratic administration. Instead, both men have remained at Brookings while their contemporaries cycle in and out of government. The reason? Pollack and O’Hanlon vocally supported invading Iraq, the former in a readable and influential <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Threatening-Storm-Case-Invading/dp/0375509283/ref=as_at?tag=thedailybeast-autotag-20&linkCode=as2&" target="_blank">book</a> and the latter in a blunt interview with Bill O’Reilly on Fox. That might make sense had the people who beat Pollack and O’Hanlon out for top jobs been vocal Iraq War opponents. But for the most part, Pollack and O’Hanlon were bested not by people who clearly opposed invading Iraq but by people who took no clear public position one way or another. That’s true of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who conducted four <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/10/the-real-problem-with-susan-rice.html">interviews</a> with National Public Radio in the six months leading up to the war in which she made many sage comments but never revealed whether she supported the invasion. And it’s true of Hagel’s competitor for secretary of defense, Michèle Flournoy, a smart, well-qualified, decent woman who on March 4, 2003—15 days before the war began—conducted an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/03/special/world/sp_iraq_flourney030403.htm" target="_blank">online chat</a> about Iraq with <i>The Washington Post</i>. I defy anyone to read it and determine whether she supported the war. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
When Obama won the presidency, some hoped that his example might alter this culture of caution. Obama had defeated Hillary Clinton, after all, in part because he made the risky decision to publicly oppose the Iraq War at a time when most other Democratic politicians were either supporting it or keeping their heads down. Early in the presidential campaign, Obama had also made unusually candid statements about Israel, <a href="http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2008/02/25/999226/obama-reaches-out-to-jewish-leaders" target="_blank">noting</a> that discussions of Israeli policy were “much more open ... in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States” and that “there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel.” </blockquote>
<blockquote>
But ironically, the dynamic proved almost exactly the opposite. Precisely because Obama, from the very beginning, was considered vaguely edgy on foreign policy, he surrounded himself with advisers who gave him political cover. Thus, during the 2008 general election campaign, Obama made Dennis Ross, the Democratic Mideast hand most trusted by the “pro-Israel” right, his main spokesman on the issue rather than Daniel Kurtzer, who had endorsed Obama earlier but whose frank opposition to settlement growth as ambassador to Israel had made him less trusted in Jewish establishment circles. Or consider the Obama campaign’s treatment of former Clinton-administration national-security staffer Rob Malley. After leaving office, Malley had co-written a controversial essay arguing that Yasser Arafat was not solely to blame for the failure of the 2000 Camp David peace talks and met (as a private citizen) with representatives of Hamas. In response, an Obama campaign aide privately pledged that Malley would not receive an administration job, and the campaign distributed an article by my old <i>TNR</i> boss Marty Peretz that praised Obama while calling Malley “a rabid hater of Israel.” Malley discovered what the campaign had done when the mass email containing Peretz’s article arrived in his inbox. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
This pattern of surrounding himself with advisers more cautious than himself continued once Obama took office. He made Hillary Clinton—the woman whose foreign-policy views he had derided as cautious and conventional during the campaign—his secretary of state. As national-security advisor he chose James Jones, a man who had <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/11/21/potential-deputies-to-rice-no-thanks/" target="_blank">twice been offered</a> the job of deputy secretary of state in the Bush administration. At the Pentagon he kept on the Bush administration’s Robert Gates. A month into Obama’s presidency, when Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair selected Chas Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council, Freeman quickly came under attack, largely for a series of comments about Israeli policy that, while harshly critical, would not have been out of place in <i>Haaretz</i>. After two weeks without any show of support from the White House, Freeman withdrew his nomination. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Partly as a result of these personnel decisions, Obama’s foreign policy—while often operationally skillful—has left unchallenged many of the assumptions made “mainstream” by George W. Bush. Obama has never questioned Bush’s insistence that Iran cannot be deterred, even though deterrence was crucial to America’s strategy against China and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He has abandoned his promise to close Guantánamo Bay. And during the debate over the Afghan surge, when Obama grew skeptical of David Petraeus’s push for 40,000 new troops, his top cabinet secretaries constrained rather than encouraged his heretical thoughts. In his book <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obamas-Wars-Bob-Woodward/dp/B005Q5QXZU/ref=as_at?tag=thedailybeast-autotag-20&linkCode=as2&" target="_blank">Obama’s Wars</a></i>, Bob Woodward reports that Hillary Clinton, along with Robert Gates, played a key role in “diminishing the president’s running room. She had reduced his cover for any decision with significantly fewer troops.” </blockquote>
<blockquote>
All of which makes the Hagel pick so important. Unlike John Kerry, whose political caution has smoothed the way for a virtually uncontested secretary-of-state nomination, Hagel says in public what others only say in private. In his 2005 book, <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Much-Too-Promised-Land-Arab-Israeli/dp/0553384147/ref=as_at?tag=thedailybeast-autotag-20&linkCode=as2&" target="_blank">The Much Too Promised Land</a></i>, former Clinton administration Middle East hand Aaron Miller notes that “of all my conversations [about the Israel debate in Congress], the one with Hagel stands apart for its honesty and clarity.” That’s because when Hagel told Miller that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here,” he was saying the same thing that people who work in Congress and the executive branch say all the time. As Thomas Friedman has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/friedman-give-chuck-a-chance.html?_r=2&" target="_blank">noted</a>, “I am certain that the vast majority of U.S. senators and policy makers quietly believe exactly what Hagel believes on Israel.” But the operative word is <i>quietly</i>. I’ve also heard many government officials, some of them Jewish, say things similar to what Hagel is now being flayed for having told Miller. The difference is that those other officials first confirmed that they were speaking off the record. One even lowered his voice and closed the door. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Hagel’s uncommon honesty isn’t restricted to Israel. Among the statements that critics now decry is Hagel’s 2007 <a href="http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_costs_of_war_for_oil" target="_blank">declaration</a> that “People say we’re not fighting for oil [in Iraq]. Of course we are.” In <i>The Weekly Standard</i>, Bill Kristol <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hagel-war-oil_693833.html" target="_blank">calls</a> Hagel’s statement “vulgar and disgusting.” What Kristol doesn’t note is that the same article that quotes Hagel also quotes noted radical Alan Greenspan saying virtually the same thing. The difference: Greenspan said it in his memoir, published once he was safely retired from government service. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
As John Judis notes, Hagel was considered a plausible Republican presidential candidate in 2008 until his blunt criticism of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies ended his career in the GOP. He is, therefore, one of the very few public figures in recent memory—Joe Lieberman, whose blunt support <i>for</i> the Bush administration’s Iraq policies ended his career in the Democratic Party, is another—to have forfeited a national role in his political party because of his policy views. In the process, Hagel has incurred the wrath of the same hawkish “pro-Israel” forces whose influence he was rash enough to acknowledge. He has done, in short, exactly what people who aspire to jobs like secretary of defense in Democratic administrations learn not to do. If Barack Obama nominates him anyway, it will be the greatest blow in years to the culture of timidity that dominates the Democratic foreign-policy class. As one former Obama administration official puts it, “Before, when 25-year-olds came to me for career advice, I would tell them, ‘You should be very circumspect, very cautious.’ After Hagel, I would say it’s OK to have strong, even divisive opinions.” </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Barack Obama has been commander in chief for nearly four years, but in important ways, the Obama era in American foreign policy has not yet begun. It will begin when Democrats express their foreign-policy views as fearlessly as do their Republican counterparts and when those Republican counterparts can no longer impose their historical amnesia about the catastrophes of the last 10 years on public debate. It will begin when the American right can no longer marginalize public officials with whom it disagrees about Iran by hurling charges of anti-Semitism with a promiscuity that would make Al Sharpton blush. It will begin when Obama surrounds himself with advisers more interested in shifting the foreign-policy “mainstream” than parroting it. It will begin when Obama declares independence from the Bush-era assumptions that have so far constrained his foreign policy. And with luck, we will one day look back upon Chuck Hagel’s nomination as the day it did.</blockquote>
Please read the full story on "<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/why-hagel-matters.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet" target="_blank">Why Chuck Hagel Matters</a>" at the Daily Beast. It is an eye opener.<br />
<br />
Sometimes you have to take the blinders off and see the real world not the world we have been fed by the politicians and the military/industrial complex for years. I have been trying to figure out what type of Republican I am and can now say "Eisenhower" Republican fits me perfectly. He was my hero growing up and still is today. Dwight Eisenhower stood for the American people of all races just not whites and realized what war could do to a Nation and its youth. President Kennedy was following in the footsteps of Eisenhower not to escalate the troops in Vietnam when he was assassinated. What would have happened to this Country if JFK had lived and LBJ had never been President? We will never know, but would bet thousands of American families would not have lost loved ones in Vietnam.<br />
<br />
We cannot make the same mistake of Vietnam and Iraq by going into war with Iran or Syria where we have no business except it will make defense contractors wealthy by allowing the hawks to run the Government and give out those huge defense contracts. Can you say Halliburton?<br />
<br />
Time to see what President Obama does with his own appointees. I am willing to give him a chance and so should every American IMHO.<br />
<br />
<div class="dek-body">
<div class="parsys updated-dek">
</div>
</div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text9" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text10" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text11" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text12" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text13" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text14" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text15" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text16" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text17" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text18" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text19" style="visibility: hidden;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886" name="body_text20" style="visibility: hidden;"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-33791937560163072372013-01-02T19:10:00.003-06:002013-01-02T19:10:58.970-06:00Houses Passes Cliff Bill BUT Refuses to Vote on Hurricane Relief for NY/NJHouse passed the Senate bill late last night with a majority of Republicans voting no but thanks to Rep Pelosi and the Dems it passed. Was the bill perfect? Far from it, but it was the best they could get after wasting on the time grandstanding by House Republicans. Must admit that Koch Brothers Tea Party House Republicans are brain dead and clueless when it comes to the American people and what we support. They refused to come up with a bill tossing it to the Senate and then complain about the bill the Senate passed. How stupid do they think we are not to be on to their tactics by now? There are a lot more Republicans waking daily to the shenanigans of House GOP and are furious. On Twitter, finding more and more GOP willing to roll up their sleeves in 2014 and throw out the Koch Bros Tea Party elected officials.<br />
<br />
The GOP run House has one upped themselves on stupidity by refusing to pass the hurricane aid bill for NY/NJ. Here is what Governor Cuomo (D-NY) and Governor Christie (R-NJ) had to say in a <a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/christie-cuomo-condemn-houses-inaction-on-sandy-relief" target="_blank">statement </a>they released: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>
With all that New York and New Jersey and our millions of residents and small businesses have suffered and endured, this continued inaction and indifference by the House of Representatives is inexcusable. It has now been 66 days since Hurricane Sandy hit and 27 days since President Obama put forth a responsible aid proposal that passed with a bipartisan vote in the Senate while the House has failed to even bring it to the floor. This failure to come to the aid of Americans following a severe and devastating natural disaster is unprecedented. The fact that days continue to go by while people suffer, families are out of their homes, and men and women remain jobless and struggling during these harsh winter months is a dereliction of duty. When American citizens are in need we come to their aid. That tradition was abandoned in the House last night.</blockquote>
<br />
When former Utah Governor and Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said the current GOP was devoid of soul he was right as they are proving over and over:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R), who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, had harsh words for his party in an interview published Sunday in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/9771589/Republican-party-is-devoid-of-a-soul-says-Jon-Huntsman.html" target="_hplink">Britain's Daily Telegraph.</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/9771589/Republican-party-is-devoid-of-a-soul-says-Jon-Huntsman.html" target="_hplink"></a><blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The party right now is a holding company that's devoid of a soul and it will be filled up with ideas over time and leaders will take their proper place," he said.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"We can't be known as a party that's fear-based and doesn't believe in math," he added. "In the end it will come down to a party that believes in opportunity for all our people, economic competitiveness and a strong dose of libertarianism."</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hunstman, who dropped out of the Republican race after coming in third in the New Hampshire primary, has criticized the rightward tilt of the party. In a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/jon-huntsman-republican-primary-2012_n_2206336.html?1354137196" target="_hplink">recent interview with The Huffington Post</a>, he took issue with the obstructionist policies of the GOP, describing them as "thwart the opposition, stymie the opposition, obfuscate, be a flamethrower, go out there and destroy the system, and here we are."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/jon-huntsman-gop_n_2387879.html" target="_blank">In my party</a>, compromise cannot be seen as analogous to treason, which it has been recently," he said.</blockquote>
Is it time for a new Party to form? A lot of long time Republicans have had it with the Koch Brothers Tea Party Representatives in the House who do not represent any of us with their 'my way or no way' attitude that they are the only only ones who are right. <br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-29269123164783638902012-12-31T17:18:00.002-06:002012-12-31T17:18:33.327-06:00House GOP is Worthless -- Beholden to Major Donors over 98% of American People!UPDATE: 4:20 p.m., 31 Jan 2012 from CNN Email:<br />
<br />
<br />
The House of Representatives won't vote on any plans to avert the fiscal
cliff on Monday, leaders have told members. <br />
<br />
<br />
President Barack Obama said earlier in the day that an agreement to avert
some of the automatic tax increases and spending cuts appeared to be "within
sight," and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said a deal was "very, very
close." <br />
<br />
<br />
There would be little practical difference in settling the issue Monday
versus Tuesday, sources said. One exception: If lawmakers approve a bill on
Tuesday -- after tax rates have technically gone up -- they can argue they've
voted for a tax cut to bring rates back down, GOP sources said.<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
<br />
Today's House Republicans are proving they are the worst members of Congress in leadership ever as they obviously don't take their oaths seriously preferring to bow to big donors over the American people. Vote them all out in 2014! Never thought I would say that but the House Republicans are worthless and a drag on our economy.<br />
<br />
Negotiations are ongoing in the US Senate after the House GOP abdicated their Constitutional responsibility to be the main force behind budget bills. Guess the Senate GOP didn't get the word from the Koch Brothers and other big donors that they could not negotiate like the House who lined up with the wealthy donors. In fact organizations from the Koch's like Americans for Prosperity are telling the House GOP to let the economy go over the cliff. How much have the Koch's invested in seeing our Government go over the cliff. They seem to be doing everything in their power to tank the economy and have a willing House to go along. IMHO the Koch Brothers and other major donors should be investigated along with members of Congress on exchange of votes for money. Am I accusing the Republicans in the House of selling out for donations? You could say that -- call it a hunch but the way they are acting they are not putting the American people first.<br />
<br />
Now those poor babies in the House got their feelings hurt because President Obama dared to go after the lazy, good for nothing Republican Representatives who have the distinction of being the worst House in over 70 years. When you refuse as a House to pass a bill unless it has majority support in your Conference ignoring the Democrats as potential votes, then nothing should shock anyone out of these House Republicans except honesty which they have a problem with today.<br />
<br />
<hgroup><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/republicans-lash-out-at-obama-even-as-fiscal-cliff-deal-close-at-hand.php?ref=fpa" target="_blank">Republicans Lash Out At Obama, Even As Fiscal Cliff Deal Close At Hand</a></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<img alt="President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks about the fiscal cliff, Monday, Dec. 31, 2012, in the South Court Auditorium at the White House in Washington." class="feature_img captionable" height="360" src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2012/12/barack-obama-12-31-12-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" width="652" /><span class="caption" style="top: 360px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks about the fiscal cliff, Monday, Dec. 31, 2012, in the South Court Auditorium at the White House in Washington.</span></span><br /><br /><span class="byline"><strong><a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/brian_beutler.php">Brian Beutler</a></strong> <time datetime="2012-12-12T19:27:27Z" pubdate="pubdate">December 31, 2012, 2:27 PM</time> </span> <span class="meta"><span id="viewcount">11834</span> <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/republicans-lash-out-at-obama-even-as-fiscal-cliff-deal-close-at-hand.php?ref=fpa#pagecomments"><span id="commentcount"></span></a> </span><br />Republicans reacted immediately and with tremendous hostility to President Obama’s remarks at the White House Monday afternoon, and accused him of jeopardizing a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden had been nearing agreement on legislation to avert broad tax increases and spending cuts next year, say aides with direct knowledge of the negotiations. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But the evolving framework is unsatisfactory to members of both parties, including members of Democratic leadership, and one Democratic aide described the whole process was “hanging by a thread.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That was before Obama’s remarks, in which he boasted that the nascent plan would protect major progressive priorities, and attacked Congress for threatening to derail it before the end of the day when all of the Bush tax cuts expire. Obama also issued a key demand regarding an issue at the heart of the remaining differences between the parties.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester,” <a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-demands-further-revenue-to-defuse-sequester-after">Obama said</a>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That may be a non-starter for Republicans. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As of early Monday afternoon, the Dems’ latest offer, which is still changing, would lock in the Bush era tax rates for income up to $400,000 per individual filer, ($450,000 per family). It would set identical thresholds for capital gains and dividends taxes, which would rise from 15 to 20 percent. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The estate tax would climb from 35 to 40 percent for estates worth $5 million or more. And two tax expenditure limitations — a personal exemption phase out and a limitation on itemized deductions — would be instated. The former would be set at $250,000. The deduction limit — called Pease, after the late Rep. Don Pease (D-OH) — would reduce the value of tax deductions above $250,000 in income ($300,000 for joint filers). </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Altogether this would raise about $600 billion in revenue above the current policy baseline, according to another source familiar with the negotiations. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The key sticking point, however, is the sequester. Democrats have rejected a GOP offer to delay the sequester by three months. They want to extend that deadline by a full year. But Republicans have rejected Democrats’ request to defray the over $100 billion cost cost with revenue. President Obama, as he indicated at the White House, insists on at least splitting the difference and paying for part of the sequester delay with new revenue and the rest with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It’s not clear whether Republicans can accept that demand. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Negotiators hope to include a permanent patch to the alternative minimum tax, and extend a variety of business tax credits for a year. They also hope to extend emergency unemployment benefits — a $30 billion spending measure — and current Medicare physician reimbursement rates, but remain at odds over whether and how to pay for them.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But Biden’s latest offer does extend by five years expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit that were part of the 2009 recovery act. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Senate Democratic leaders will have the final say over any deal amenable to McConnell and the White House. But it’s hard to imagine them rejecting an offer amenable to the President. If Senate Republicans and Democrats come to terms on a deal Monday, the real question will be whether House Republicans allow it to come to a vote, and whether it would pass. </blockquote>
</hgroup><aside id="social"><div class="social-tools">
<div class="modal">
</div>
</div>
</aside><br />
It is not going unnoticed even in Republicans circles that the House GOP are bought and paid for by rich donors with their continuing stubbornness in protecting the wealthy while at the same time could care less about the Middle Class who will face tax increases that would hurt much more including loss of unemployment benefits then tax hikes on the wealthy Republicans. <br />
<br />
Are Republicans trying to tank the economy? It sure looks like it from where I sit. How much do the Koch Brothers stand to gain from this? Did they short stocks in expectation of going over the cliff to make money and make sure the GOP House was going to do their bidding. Shame on the spineless House GOP. They have zero credibility to go with their zero ethics. Only reason they are still in power is because of gerrymandering which was the worst over.<br />
<br />
If you are a Republican, time to consider supporting a Democrat against them because this group of Republicans have proven they cannot govern and don't care about the majority of us. This is a perfect example of the Koch Brothers taking over the House with the Tea Party who refuse to follow rules or do what is best for America. They act like spoiled selfish brats instead as part of the 'my way or no way' crowd. Nothing else matters as long as they get their way!<br />
<br />
From <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-fineman/fiscal-cliff-congress_b_2390082.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications" target="_blank">Howard Fineman at Huffington Post:</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Another reason for Global By Crisis (GBC) is the Tea Party GOP. No politician likes to raise taxes (or at least they don't want to be seen as liking to raise taxes). And it is true that tax cuts can stimulate the economy -- until they crush it with government borrowing. But the Tea Party has turned this fundamental truism into a fanatical, nihilistic dogma. Which means that the harder they are pressed, the harder they resist, because they think they are channeling Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams (the revolutionary, but perhaps also the beer), Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp all at the same time. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Tea Partiers are giving checks and balances a bad name, but they can effectively use the Constitution and the rules of the House and Senate to gum up the works, which is another reason why we are now in a permanent state of "crisis" in D.C.</blockquote>
<br />
This perpetual state of crises needs to end and looks like it is going to have to wait until 2014 when maybe we can get some sensible people elected to the House instead of the spineless House GOP we have today who put donors over America. Going to be tough with gerrymandering but Republicans can help make a difference by ousting Republicans from their seats which they think they own with all the big money flowing. Tough job but it is worth a try and time to get started on identifying seats that can be picked up by Democrats as this group of Republicans have abdicated their right to govern by not governing and playing politics with the American people. They didn't learn one lesson from the election as they high five themselves. The House GOP risk the full faith and credit of the United States for their big donors like the Koch Brothers which should should label them traitors to the American people IMHO!<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-56198426041628252792012-12-30T11:44:00.000-06:002012-12-30T11:44:38.143-06:00Will the Obstructionists House Republicans Keep Saying "NO" Pushing the US Over the Cliff?<b><i>Will the Republican House Compromise?</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
Jury is still out. Back from vacation and ready to roll up the sleeves -- some things don't change and the GOP House being the Party of "NO" is one of those as witnessed with what we are seeing. They couldn't even find the votes to pass their own plan last week. Dysfunctional comes to mind along with a lot of other words to describe this House GOP membership.<br />
<br />
As I looked around the net this morning following the President's interview with David Gregory on NBC's <i>Meet the Press</i>, I felt that<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/president-obama-fiscal-cliff_n_2384230.html?1356876210" target="_blank"> Sam Stein of Huffington Post</a> did the best job of recapping what happened in the interview about the fiscal cliff. The abject failure of House Republicans by abdicating their Congressional responsibility for the budget with their stubbornness reminds me of a mule mentality. As my brother said, someone needs to take a 2"x4" upside their head to get their attention. <br />
<br />
Here is the video of the David Gregory interview with President Obama on<i> Meet the Press </i>uploaded by NBC on You Tube:<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Hobo-RQsrxI?feature=player_embedded" width="640"></iframe></center>
<br />
Sam Stein's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/president-obama-fiscal-cliff_n_2384230.html?1356876210" target="_blank">article on President Obama's</a> interview by David Gregory on <i>Meet the Press</i> this morning:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
WASHINGTON -- In his first Sunday show interview since his reelection, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/president-obama-fiscal-cliff_n_2384230.html?1356876210" target="_blank">President Barack Obama admonished congressional Republicans</a> for their unwillingness to compromise over debt-reduction and implored the media to cast aside its pox-on-both-your-houses coverage. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
With the deadline to negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff looming in the backdrop, the president took to "Meet the Press" to defend his efforts to try and find common ground. He noted that he had moved off his initial demands for revenue (once $1.6 trillion, now $1.2 trillion), agreed to entitlement reforms (reduced Social Security benefits) and already passed hefty spending cuts ($1 trillion as part of the Budget Control Act in 2011). And for that, he added, he was still waiting for Republicans to get closer to half-way.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“We have been talking to the Republicans ever since the election was over. They have had trouble saying yes to a number of repeated offers,” said the president, according to an advance transcript of the interview. He would add, later: “[S]o far, at least, Congress has not been able to get this stuff done. Not because Democrats in Congress don't want to go ahead and cooperate, but because I think it's been very hard for Speaker Boehner and Republican Leader McConnell to accept the fact that taxes on the wealthiest Americans should go up a little bit, as part of an overall deficit reduction package.”</blockquote>
The president's tone was tougher than usual. In the past, he’s been hesitant to directly rebuke congressional Republicans, choosing instead to attack the legislative body as a whole. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But the last few weeks of negotiations have clearly frustrated both him and his staff. White House aides were particularly piqued at Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for shelving negotiations over a larger fiscal cliff deal in pursuit of a tax-rate-only option. That ended the legislative progress in the House and forced the Senate to pick up talks. With just days before tax rates rise on all income rates and $1 trillion in decade-long spending cuts go into effect, Senate leaders met on Saturday to find a way through the impasse. One knowledgeable aide said a deal didn’t look likely as of Saturday afternoon. A Republican aide said it would be impossible to know for sure until Sunday afternoon when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) brief their respective caucuses. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Even as they talked, preparations were being made to manage the public relations fallout over the impending failure to meet the deadline. Part of that involved the president hitting the Sunday talk show circuit, where he urged the press to not resort to false equivalencies when assigning blame. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
And to try to work with everybody involved to make sure that we've got an economy grows. Make sure that it works for everybody. Make sure that we're keeping the country safe. And does the Democratic party still have some knee jerk ideological positions and are there some folks in the Democratic party who sometimes aren't reasonable? Of course. That's true of every political party. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But generally if you look at how I've tried to govern over the last four years and how I'll continue to try to govern, I'm not driven by some ideological agenda. I am a pretty practical guy. And I just want to make sure that things work. And one of the nice things about never having another election again, I will never campaign again, is I think you can rest assured that all I care about is making sure that I leave behind an America that is stronger, more prosperous, more stable, more secure than it was when I came into office.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The only thing I would caution against, David, is I think this notion of, "Well, both sides are just kind of unwilling to cooperate." And that's just not true. I mean if you look at the facts, what you have is a situation here where the Democratic party, warts and all, and certainly me, warts and all, have consistently done our best to try to put country first.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
When the President admonished the media for saying both sides were unwilling to cooperate, he was right. There is one party to blame for this whole debacle and that blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the Republican Party in Congress or as some have tabbed them, "Party of NO!" That is an apt description of a GOP who refuses to acknowledge the results of the election in November or understands the American people have spoken on what they want which is tax hikes on the wealthy. While the GOP continues to throw the middle class under the bus, they play up to their big donors, Tea Party, and lobbyists. <br />
<br />
Despicable group of 'non-leaders; in the GOP House who seem to be scared of their own shadows so they placate the hard right. GOP only maintained control of the House because of some of the most corrupt gerrymandering that anyone has ever seen. If you add up the votes for House races, the Democrats actually had over 1 million more votes but because of the underhandedness and lack of ethics of GOP State Legislatures in drawing redistricting lines like in PA, they kept control. The GOP has a real problem in 2014 when Republicans like me decide to throw in with the Democrats to defeat GOP incumbents and candidates as we have had it with their arrogance and attacks on Obama and minorities bordering on racism, plus their war on the middle class, women, veterans, teachers, police, fire, and civil service for starters. <br />
<br />
Most do-nothing Congress ever in modern times in the last two years since the GOP took over the House. Our Country would be much in much better shape and Americans even more back on our feet if not for the Republican Party in Congress where in the Senate they have filibustered bills before they even hit the floor for a vote. They are nothing but obstructionist who have a penchant for lying to the American people about this President and the Democrats in order to make themselves look good. Note to GOP -- American people are waking up and not liking what they are seeing out of the GOP. Will the GOP be blamed for putting us through this nonsense to keep tax cuts for the wealthy -- you betcha!<br />
<br />
Republicans in Congress have not gotten that through their "pea size" brains based on their words and actions that they work for all their constituents not just the wealthy Republicans, Tea Party, and social issue types. The rest of us should be heard as well as we also have votes.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I sat down last night and wrote my Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK) which is probably a waste of time but since he has been speaking out for the GOP with trying to blame both sides, I decided to let you see what I had to say. I will be happy to post his response when I get it but not holding my breath because I said what I thought:<br />
<span id="role_document" style="color: black;">
</span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
<span id="role_document" style="color: black;">Having supported Republicans my whole adult life, find myself in the
position of being thoroughly disgusted with the HOUSE GOP obstructionists with
zero backbone. Putting wealthy donors over the middle class of this Country is
beyond disgusting. The lies that come out of the House members continually make
a lot of long-time Republicans want to scream. The war on women has not stopped
as witnessed with holding hearings concerning women's issues and not having
women testify. It is more of the white male dominated GOP House modus
operandi.<br /> <br />When you take off the blinders and realize we have been lied to by the GOP
over the last four years, you get madder. Do the research and you discover that
the gerrymandering to keep the House GOP was most likely the worst ever. Hope
Republicans in the House are all proud of of what you have become where wealthy
are put over the middle class.<br /> <br />A lot of long time Republicans are embarrassed at what we see out of the
GOP today. The filibusters in the Senate are a bad joke and the Republicans
have made a mockery out of governing in the House.<br /> <br />Don't know if I will ever vote for a Republican in the near future but do
know that I met a lot of honest people who want what is best for America when I
joined Republicans for Obama. Pretty bad when you trust Democrats to look out
for your well being more then Republicans.<br /> <br />Too many House GOP seem to agree with the 47% remark and it has not gone
unnoticed. Some of the comments coming out of the GOP and Preibus wanting to
remain Chair show nothing was learned from the election -- not one thing as
obstruction continues to the point of telling the Senate to act as the House
won't on the cliff. Way to go -- abdicate Constitutional responsibilities now.<br />
<br />The Tea Party can shove it in my book along with the wealthy donors. You
want an inclusive GOP, you may (not) be getting it. Not one member of my family voted
for Romney. Now most are considering leaving the GOP entirely which my youngest
daughter has already done in Colorado.<br /><br />GOP in the House needs to take their blinders off and stand up to the Tea
Party or see the GOP relegated to the scrap heap. Seems being reelected trumps
what is best for the American people.<br /><br />Am I disgusted? You can take that to the bank!</span></blockquote>
<span id="role_document" style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">To put this into more perspective, when Cong Cole ran for the first time in 2002, I spent hours not only in his office but in my home working for his election. Some people here think he broke from leadership but if they really believe that I have swampland for sale in Arizona. It is plan to make some in the GOP seem more reasonable if I was a betting person. Cole has been a consultant for years and will try to play the odds IMHO which is why the Speaker and other leadership sent the Whip Cole out to talk to the media. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span id="role_document" style="color: black;">
</span><br />
<div>
<span id="role_document" style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Not sure the GOP in the House or Senate could lead if their lives depended on it as they have one word in their vocabulary which is "NO" to tax hikes on the wealthy. They will gladly see tax hikes go up for everyone to preserve their 'we didn't vote for tax cuts on the wealthy' mantra. It seems to this bystander they (GOP) are adverse to anything that President Obama offers preferring to trash him at every turn with their lies and innuendos. </span></span></div>
<span id="role_document" style="color: black;">
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Today's GOP in the Congress in both Houses does not come to the table as honest brokers IMHO but to see what they can pull over on Obama and the Democrats to make sure only GOP ideas see the light of day. They have totally missed the significance of the results of the November election where President Obama received 53% of the vote and Romney ironically received 47%. You couldn't make that up -- poetic justice has been served. The GOP lost big time including in the Senate where they only had ten seats to defend and the Democrats 23 seats and yet the GOP lost two of those ten seats. The American people spoke and told the Republicans including in the House where 1 million more voted for Democrats that they wanted both parties to work together. Obviously the GOP did not get the message. Now the House GOP won't even do their Constitutional duty to be the home of the budget. Do you want to know why?</span></div>
<div style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div style="font-size: medium;">
Ever heard of the 'Hastert Rule?' I didn't until recently -- talk about an idiotic and stupid rule out of the GOP Conference -- this one takes the cake -- guess it is their version of filibuster:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: medium;">
The<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority" target="_blank"> <b>majority of the majority</b></a> is a governing principle (not a legal procedure) used by Republican <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_House_of_Representatives" title="Speaker of the House of Representatives">Speakers of the House of Representatives</a> since the mid-1990's to effectively limit the power of the minority party to bring <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_7:_Bills" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">bills</a> up for a vote on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_(legislative)" title="Floor (legislative)">floor</a> of the house.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority#cite_note-1">[1</a></sup> Under the majority of the majority doctrine the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="Speaker of the United States House of Representatives">Speaker of the United States House of Representatives</a> will not allow a vote on a bill to take place unless the majority of the majority party supports the bill.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup> This is sometimes referred to as the “<b>Hastert Rule</b>”,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority#cite_note-3">[3]</a></sup> as its introduction is widely credited to former Speaker <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert" title="Dennis Hastert">Dennis Hastert</a> (1999-2007); however, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich" title="Newt Gingrich">Newt Gingrich</a>, who directly preceded Hastert as Speaker (1995-1999), followed the same rule.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority#cite_note-4">[4]</a></sup> Hastert was vocal in his support of the rule stating that his job was "<i>to please the majority of the majority</i>."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-WaPo2004_5-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority#cite_note-WaPo2004-5">[5]</a></sup></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: medium;">
In practical terms this keeps the minority party from passing bills with the assistance of a small number of members of the majority party. It takes 218 votes to pass a bill. Even when there are 218 votes to pass a bill, the rule prevents votes from taking place when those 218 votes do not include the majority of the majority party. If the Democrats are the minority party and the Republicans are the majority party, under the majority of the majority rule it would not be possible for 170 Democrats and 50 Republicans together to pass a bill, because 50 Republicans votes is far short of a majority of the majority party, so the Speaker would not allow a vote to take place.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-6"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup> As an example, if the Republican Party is the majority party and has 234 seats in Congress, it would take 118 (117+1) Republican votes in support of legislation before a vote could take place. With less than 118 Republican votes the legislation would be blocked, even if 218 or more votes could be found between the two parties. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-size: medium;">
A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition" title="Discharge petition">discharge petition</a> signed by 218 members (or more) from any party is the only way to force consideration of a bill or resolution that does not have support of a majority of the majority. However, discharge petitions are rarely successful, as a member of the majority party defying their party's leadership by signing a discharge petition can expect retribution from the leadership.</blockquote>
<div style="font-size: medium;">
Thought the comments of the last <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority" target="_blank">three Speaker's </a>were telling:</div>
<div style="font-size: medium;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Dennis Hastert (Speaker from 1999 - 2007): "On occasion, a particular issue might excite a majority made up mostly of the minority. Campaign finance is a particularly good example of this phenomenon. [But] the job of speaker is not to expedite legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his majority."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-WaPo2004_5-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority#cite_note-WaPo2004-5">[5]</a></sup> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi" title="Nancy Pelosi">Nancy Pelosi</a> (2007 - 2011): "I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-7"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority#cite_note-7">[7]</a></sup> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner" title="John Boehner">John Boehner</a> (2011 -): "I’m not interested in passing something with mostly Democrat votes."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-8"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority#cite_note-8">[8]</a></sup></blockquote>
Out of three Speakers only the Democrat Speaker Pelosi believes as Speaker she should represent everyone not just Democrats so she did not adhere to the so-called 'Hastert Rule' which Republican Speakers try to follow 100%. If Boehner strays from the rule, Hastert is there to take him on for ignoring the 'Hastert' Rule. <br />
<br />
That is no way to govern the people's House of Representatives where the members are the House are elected and sent to DC to work for us the American people not the Republican Party.<br />
<br />
The wealthy donors led by the Koch Brothers, Tea Party, and Social Conservatives are all totally opposed to anything the President offers and refuse to even consider compromise as they adhere to their 'my way or no way' rule which is destroying the very foundation of the Republican Party. When President Eisenhower integrated schools, it was the Democrats who opposed him. Today, it would be Republicans because that white, southern male racist mentality exists in a lot of today's Republican elected officials. They will toss a bone to a minority or woman but that is about it. It is a white male dominated party who have the respect of a gnat for women and their issues. Truly believe that if Hillary had been elected, she would have had the same problem as President Obama as some in the GOP consider women the lowest of the minorities. <br />
<br />
Fox News has been the willing participant to trash this President and outright lie about him as we have been witnessing. Ethics in Journalism doesn't seem to apply to Fox News as well as some others. They wouldn't know what ethics was if it hit them in the face. Many members of the media along with the Republicans in the Congress and in the States will say and do anything to make this President look bad whether true or not the expense of the American people and the Country. <br />
<br />
As a lifelong Republican I find this whole group of Republicans in the Congress beyond disgusting and frankly reprehensible that they put the Party over what is good for the Country because they want big donors, lobbyists, and hard right Tea Party on their side as they are afraid to be primaried and lose their job. They have the backbone of a wet noodle. Do they not understand that a lot of us would roll up our sleeves and open our checkbooks if they would just stand up and say no to the hard right taking the party back to center right where common sense prevails? A good start would be kicking out the Koch Brothers with the libertarian/John Birchers in toe, the Tea Party obstructionists who only know the word 'no' along the 2nd amendment militia types for starters but chances of that happening are zero, zip, nada as the GOP stays hard right IMHO. <br />
<br />
If the Republican Party refuses to get some common sense, they will be relegated to the trash heap of history which will show they went too far hard right to where they could not govern. America is a diverse country but this bunch of Republicans cannot seem to grasp that very idea as they pander to the wealthy and the hard right.<br />
<br />
Any Democrat wants help in a Congressional race in 2014, sign me up. This bunch of House Republicans needs to see the unemployment line as well as some in the Senate starting with Minority Leader McConnell. Can you say Ashley Judd? <br />
<br />
Can the GOP be rebuilt? From what I am seeing, I have my doubts as they are doubling down on stupid. That leaves a viable new party to rise from the ashes. The GOP did it with the Whigs, but are there leaders out there today willing to put up with the garbage out of the mouths of Fox News talk people, Rush, Hannity, and the big donors like Koch in order to stand up for all Americans? Are they willing to go out of a limb to provide those of us who are long time Republicans a Party with common sense ideas on how to make America a better place for everyone not just the wealthy and the hard right? Are they willing to work and compromise with Democrats and Independents in order to make this Country better? If not, the Republican Party is going to start seeing an exodus after what we are seeing out of our elected officials in Congress.<br />
<br />
Must admit that I am shocked that the Republican didn't learn one thing from the election when they were repudiated big time. Stubborn like a mule does describe this group in of Republicans in the House.</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
</span><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-26828750473851092342012-12-18T16:30:00.000-06:002012-12-18T16:30:02.612-06:00Christmas is a Time to Reflect This will be my last post for before Christmas as I am getting ready for the trip to Denver to spend with the two granddaughters. Rotating Christmas now with our grandchildren getting older.<br />
<br />
Decided today I was going to answer the Mike Huckabee's of the Country who seem to believe only their evangelical churches have all the answers and the rest of us are not 'true' believers. Former AR Governor Mike Huckabee has been trying to walk back his comments after a backlash on what he said about the massacre in CT, but IMHO his true feelings haven't changed as I see the same thing out of other evangelical leaders:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/mike-huckabee-sandy-hook_n_2315340.html" target="_blank">During his own Fox News program </a>over the weekend, Huckabee also spoke about the massacre, tying the supposed removal of God from society to the increased instances of violence. "We’ve escorted [God] right out of our culture and marched him off the public square," Huckabee said, <a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/441127/mike-huckabee-clarifies-remarks-about-linking-connecticut-school-shooting-to-lack-of-god-in-schools-video/#ck1eldERuOqwwJkd.99" target="_hplink">according to Inquisitr</a>. "And then we express our surprise that a culture without him actually reflects what it has become.”</blockquote>
The Huckabees of the world can talk all the want about the reason that all these massacres are happening is taking God out of our lives. Just because someone doesn't attend Church, doesn't mean they don't believe. To emphasize prayer being taken out of the schools was the reason for the shootings shows a vengeful God of the Old Testament not the loving God of the New Testament.<br />
<br />
As a Christian, I am sick and tired of the hard right acting like they are the only one's who believe in God and if you don't believe like them, then you cannot be a 'true' Christian. When the Supreme Court ruled that organized prayer in the schools was against the Constitution using "freedom of religion," the hard right evangelical community missed the interpretation preferring to get publicity and donations for their campaign to put prayer back in schools. Prayer never was removed from schools -- it was organized prayer by the administrators that was stopped. It didn't stop schools from having a moment of silence where students could choose to say a prayer or not. <br />
<br />
You cannot remove God from a building or a Town Square no matter what you do because I believe he is everywhere and in our hearts. My biggest problem with the religious hard right today is that evangelicals in so many areas refuse to acknowledge other people's faith and beliefs. They want clones of what they believe which was brought home to me right here in Norman several years ago:<br />
<br />
When I was the Vice Chair of the County GOP, the local Parade Committee decided to rename the Christmas Parade to the Holiday Parade to be inclusive as we have many different religions and beliefs with students and professors from all the world here in Norman. The uproar coming from the evangelical community was so far over the top that I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I was dumb enough to write a letter to the editor saying I didn't see a problem as we are a diverse community and not having 'Christmas' in the name didn't change the parade. I was not prepared for the nastiest that ensued with a lot of it coming out of the faculty of the local Christian school. Some of the threats were so far over the top, they were reported. <br />
<br />
That's when I learned to know members of the City Council who had no input into the name change but like me didn't see a problem. The instigator of all the hate towards us was the same person who was the distributor for bracelets "Keep Christ in Christmas" all over the Country. Put 2+2 together and you have the obvious answer for the uproar. <br />
<br />
Imagine between told someone wants you to die and go to hell over a name change of a parade -- finally disconnected my phone but looking back that may have been the start of my splitting with the Republican Party because I couldn't believe what happened next.<br />
<br />
Our County Party had a float in the parade and because the theme was about toys, I thought it would be a great idea to have our float based on Toys for Tots and then give all the toys on the float to the Marine Corps Reserve for their campaign. Because of my standing up for other religions who wanted to participate in a Holiday Parade, the County GOP members did not donate very many gifts so I was approached by four businessmen who wanted to give money anonymously to buy the toys. That soon grew and I had $1,200 to spend on toys along with smaller donations which added up to $1,500 after I rounded it off with a donation of my own. <br />
<br />
I ended up on local TV as I was coming out of a toy store for an interview why I thought the name change didn't matter and I told the reporter I didn't think changing the name of a parade was going to change anyone's belief in Christmas and the birth of Christ. Went on to tell him it was only the name of a parade that hundreds of kids look forward to every year. Toy store gave me a 20% discount on everything as they had been following the story and then the manager threw in two dolls with outfits and several trucks as her donation. <br />
<br />
Our float was a real hit with the kids with some asking to throw them a toy instead of candy. After the parade, people came up to me to thank me for standing up and then made donations for more toys to purchase after the parade. A week later I was still getting checks for toys from people of the community which I turned over to the Toys for Tots campaign. I received donations of toys from several different religious groups who do not celebrate Christmas after being on the news. As one student from the Jewish Center on campus told me -- this is about children having a toy to open on Christmas morning. It is about the children not the adults and then thanked me for standing up.<br />
<br />
After I delivered the presents to the Marine Corps Reserve across from Tinker AFB and saw the disbelief on their faces that we had so many toys and then turned over the checks, I knew I had done the right thing in not pulling our float out of the parade, When I first contacted them I figured a couple bags of toys, but it was much more than that as they kept taking bags of toys out of my car and then I handed them checks for $432 to buy more toys. All the toys we collected were distributed back to the children of our County who would not have had a Christmas present. I told the Marines that the toys and donations came from people of different faiths in Norman. The Lt told me that they had read about me in the paper and how I stood up for the children as the Religious Right wanted to cancel the parade because of a name change.<br />
<br />
The following year the parade committee caved to use both Holiday and Christmas in the name but the parade is the same no matter what the name -- people in the parade pass out candy to children as the floats go by, the children dance to the music from the marching bands, and then get so excited when the last float with Santa Claus appears. The parade is about how much the children enjoy the parade not what the parade is named. .<br />
<br />
When my term was over, I never ran again and the GOP never did a Toys for Tots campaign again -- their own self importance ruled the day not what you could do for children. It was a lesson I will never forget.<br />
<br />
If I had one moment in my life where I stood up and said enough is enough out of the Republican religious right, it is that moment where I wrote a Letter to the Editor which I knew would set off a firestorm but I wanted to help rescue a parade for the children. In the end, the children won because they had presents to open and the Scrooges of the GOP lost. I would do the same thing all over again. <br />
<br />
The massacre of innocent children, teachers, and administrators in CT followed by the ridiculous and stupid comments from the hard right religious leaders along with the gun lobby, made me think back to that parade and all the hate that was spewed at volunteers, city leaders, and myself for a name change. It is the same mentality I see today in people like Huckabee that want to blame everything on lack of God in buildings, in parks, or in town squares where you cannot put up a manager scene on city property. Churches put up manger scenes all over the country and so do private property owners. God is everywhere and how a person chooses to worship is a private matter. <br />
<br />
This Christmas season is a time to pray for all the families who have lost family members to gun violence this year and pray that the cycle of these mass killings come to end by giving our elected leaders the courage to stand up and do something about getting so many violent weapons off the streets. Pray this Christmas season that the hate rhetoric stops and we come together as a Nation.<br />
<br />
At this Christmas season, remember all the children and hug your kids and grandchildren a little tighter and thank God for every day you have with them. My three children are grown but it doesn't mean I stop worrying about their well being and happiness. Have three grandchildren who I love deeply and Thank God for them and their parents every day when I wake up in the morning.<br />
<br />
God Bless and have a Merry Christmas!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQytQkCRGjnuFfqf1Ic_ePh-cbsSFRlKjRF5eFWe1OXNkbJ4ecTHLKx78Llg8ZxYtbnZ7tLgik5zq7YDP3I1HsZi3aFkbimc2IB1FUG1Fi0yhoJgvYg-zfWVCtzOmKyVjE-rvPxR4nPjp2/s1600/rockefellow+tree.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQytQkCRGjnuFfqf1Ic_ePh-cbsSFRlKjRF5eFWe1OXNkbJ4ecTHLKx78Llg8ZxYtbnZ7tLgik5zq7YDP3I1HsZi3aFkbimc2IB1FUG1Fi0yhoJgvYg-zfWVCtzOmKyVjE-rvPxR4nPjp2/s1600/rockefellow+tree.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-14119190598507231962012-12-17T18:00:00.000-06:002012-12-17T18:00:02.936-06:00President Barack Obama's Speech at Memorial Service at Newtown, CTThis excerpt from the President's speech which he wrote is asking the tough questions all of us have to be thinking. If you are honest with yourself, you will agree that we are not doing enough to protect all our children across America. Time our voices stopped being silent and became involved in taking our Country back to where you feel safe to go to church, send your kids to school, and walk in a mall. Each of us has a part in making America safer. <br />
<br />
Time we all start by contacting our elected representatives in Congress and State Government to tell them to support reasonable gun control. It is way past time to act so TODAY is the beginning of a turn-around in the gun culture of America IMHO. The video of the full speech is below these comments from the President that are an excerpt of the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-speech-at-prayer-vigil-for-newtown-shooting-victims-full-transcript/2012/12/16/f764bf8a-47dd-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story_1.html" target="_blank">transcript of his speech</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"And in that way we come to realize that we bear responsibility for every
child, because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours, that
we’re all parents, that they are all our children. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This is our first task, caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we
don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we
will be judged.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we’re meeting our
obligations?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children, all of
them, safe from harm? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know
they are loved and teaching them to love in return? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this
country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with
purpose? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with
ourselves, the answer’s no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change.
Since I’ve been president, this is the fourth time we have come together to
comfort a grieving community torn apart by mass shootings, fourth time we’ve
hugged survivors, the fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across
the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small
towns and in big cities all across America, victims whose -- much of the time
their only fault was being at the wrong place at the wrong time. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we
must change.<br />
We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is
true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent
every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for
inaction. Surely we can do better than this."</blockquote>
When I watched this speech last night, I saw a President who was not only a President but a Father who did not shy away from tackling the hard road ahead to get some common sense gun restrictions that most Americans agree need to happen. The President took on the gun lobby and those in Congress who refuse to vote for any gun restriction legislation. The task ahead is huge but I believe in my heart this President is up to that task and it is up to all of us to support him on sensible gun legislation. The President spoke from his heart last night in this speech and has garnered respect of so many Americans:<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gfaYUrgcCrY?feature=player_embedded" width="640"></iframe> </center>
<center>
<br /></center>
<center>
<br /></center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
Read the following and ask yourself why the Assault Weapons ban was allowed to expire and has not been reinstated:</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons" target="_blank">What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons </a></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<center style="text-align: left;">
<em>Following several high-profile mass shootings and attacks on law enforcement involving military-style assault weapons, Congress enacted the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The ban expired on September 13, 2004 without any consideration or action by Congress, despite the pleas of law enforcement officials across the country. Today, our nation's police find themselves increasingly outgunned by criminals armed with sophisticated firearms and detachable, high-capacity ammuniton magazines (the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was prohibited under the federal ban). The following timeline examines law enforcement's experience with assault weapons since the federal ban lapsed:</em></center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<br /></center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<strong>March 2, 2011—</strong>"<a href="http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/beck-lapd-ammunition-ban-nra-117261943.html">There is no reason that a peaceful society based on the rule of law needs its citizenry armed with 30-round [ammunition] magazines</a>," states Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck during a news conference." Such magazines transform a gun "<a href="http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/beck-lapd-ammunition-ban-nra-117261943.html">into a weapon of mass death rather than a home protection-type device</a>," Beck notes.</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<br /></center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<center style="text-align: left;">
<strong>February 26, 2011—</strong>Referring to increasing seizures of semiautomatic assault weapons that are trafficked in from outside states, Brockton (Massachusetts) Police Department Captain Emanuel Gomes says, "<a href="http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0226states_thugsloading_up_onbanned_guns_cops_its_a_mini_arms_race/">We're literally outgunned. You're talking about the kind of firepower that can go through vehicles, through vests, and that can literally go through a house</a>."</center>
</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<center style="text-align: left;">
<strong><br /></strong></center>
</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<center style="text-align: left;">
<strong>January 16, 2011—</strong>After one of his officers is ambushed by a teenager wielding a semiautomatic AR-15 and fired at 26 times, Oklahoma City Police Chief Bill Citty tells <em>The Oklahoman</em>, "<a href="http://newsok.com/police-chief-laments-criminals-access-to-military-style-guns/article/3532764">There are just more and more assault rifles out there, and it is becoming a bigger threat to law enforcement each day. They are outgunned</a>." Citty states that he sees "<a href="http://newsok.com/police-chief-laments-criminals-access-to-military-style-guns/article/3532764">no practical reason</a>" why a civilian would need an AR-15 or similiar military-style weapon.</center>
</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<br /></center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
Read More of the Timeline at <a href="http://csgv.org/">CSGV.org</a></center>
</blockquote>
</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
Have our members of Congress and State Legislatures not been listening to law enforcement since the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004? Yet, they listen to the gun lobby who helps fund their campaigns or horror of horrors, they get someone to run against them who is more pro-gun. Absolutely despicable and time to vote them out in 2014 since they put gun ownership of high powered weapons and large clips over the safety of the American people all for their selfish interest.</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<br /></center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
We mourn with the parents, siblings, children who lost family members in this tragedy and pledge to get behind the elected officials who are set on making America safer. We heard the President's call last night and time for all of us to act as One Nation Under God to right this ship called America. We owe it to our children, grandchildren, and future generations to make America a safer Country.</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<br /></center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
God Bless President Obama and the United States of America as we begin the long road to return common sense policy to our Nation. </center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<br /></center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
God be with the families and friends who lost so much when a madman shot and killed 26 innocent teachers and young students at Sandy Hook. Nothing can fill the void they are experiencing, but they need to know that they are in the hearts and prayers of all Americans. We can honor their memory by passing reasonable gun legislation and start listening to law enforcement.</center>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-64295514958039537242012-12-17T11:14:00.003-06:002012-12-17T11:14:54.889-06:00Time for All Americans to Join Together to Work on Sensible Gun Legislation <i><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/gun-control-jerry-nadler_n_2307340.html" target="_blank">NRA Members </a>are breaking from their leadership on what needs to be done for common sense gun control but will Pro-Gun members of Congress listen? </i><br />
<br />
This morning as I was viewing comments coming from the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT, I was struck by the last sentence of this paragraph from Think Progress:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/15/1341181/the-5-sensible-gun-safety-regulations-that-even-nra-members-support/" target="_blank">In the aftermath of the tragedy</a>, gun safety advocates have called for Congress to vote on banning assault weapons and high capacity clips, closing terrorism loopholes, and requiring background checks for all gun sales. Yet the NRA has yet to issue a public statement about the elementary school shooting. <b>One wonders if will listen to the views of its supporters, or continue to <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners">represent the business interests of gun manufacturers</a>, once it does. </b></blockquote>
Then there is also this about gun manufacturers:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Connecticut has a statewide ban on certain types of assault weapons, but in the decade since the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/school-shooter-adam-lanza_n_2312818.html?1355706424" target="_hplink" title="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/school-shooter-adam-lanza_n_2312818.html?1355706424">gun manufacturers have devised numerous ways to get around state bans</a> like the one in Connecticut by making small alterations. </blockquote>
Was ending the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004 so manufacturers could make more money and put more of that money into the gun lobby headed by the NRA and GOA? Is greed the answer to the high capacity clips they are selling because those clips could never be used for hunting -- there would be no deer left? When I read the article last night about the gun culture surrounding Newtown, it sent chills up my spine. Some of these gun owners scare the living daylights out of me. It is one thing to use a shotgun and/or rifle to go hunting but it is another to have a high powered assault rifle with some holding clips up to 100. As my son said this morning -- go after ammunition which is not protected by the 2nd amendment. <br />
<br />
This headline shocked me last night,<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/nyregion/in-newtown-conn-a-stiff-resistance-to-gun-restrictions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=all&" target="_blank"><b> In Town at Ease With Its Firearms, Tightening Gun Rules Was Resisted</b></a>, which described the gun culture of Newtown, CT:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
People in the rural, hilly areas around Newtown, Conn., are used to gunfire. In one woodsy stretch, southeast of downtown, the Pequot Fish and Game Club and the Fairfield County Fish and Game Protective Association, where members can fish in ponds and hunt pheasant, lie within a mile of each other, and people who live nearby generally call them good neighbors. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But in the last couple of years, residents began noticing loud, repeated gunfire, and even explosions, coming from new places. Near a trailer park. By a boat launch. Next to well-appointed houses. At 2:20 p.m. on one Wednesday last spring, multiple shots were reported in a wooded area on Cold Spring Road near South Main Street, right across the road from an elementary school. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Yet recent efforts by the police chief and other town leaders to gain some control over the shooting and the weaponry turned into a tumultuous civic fight, with traditional hunters and discreet gun owners opposed by assault weapon enthusiasts, and a modest tolerance for bearing arms competing with the staunch views of a gun industry trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which has made Newtown its home. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The place that witnessed one of the worst mass killings in United States history on Friday, leaving 20 schoolchildren and 8 adults dead, is a bucolic New England town comfortable with its firearms, and not an obvious arena for the nation’s debate over gun control. But the legislative battle right here shows how even the slightest attempts to impose restrictions on guns can run into withering resistance, made all the more pointed by the escalation in firepower. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Something needs to be done,” said Joel T. Faxon, a hunter and a member of the town’s police commission, who championed the shooting restrictions. “These are not normal guns, that people need. These are guns for an arsenal, and you get lunatics like this guy who goes into a school fully armed and protected to take return fire. We live in a town, not in a war.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Read More at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/nyregion/in-newtown-conn-a-stiff-resistance-to-gun-restrictions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=all&" target="_blank">NY Times </a> </blockquote>
<br />
<header class="entry-header">There seems to be a common theme developing from this tragedy that is splitting hunters from the NRA and GOA gun lobby. No one in this Country is trying to take someone's guns they use for hunting or defending their homes or even target shooting. The majority of gun owners in a poll don't understand the big clips holding up to a hundred bullets any better then the non-gun owners. My Dad had a shotgun and a rifle to go hunting. Finally we are seeing a move to reinstate the assault weapons ban once again along with getting high capacity clips off the market:</header><header class="entry-header">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/17/1343541/life-long-gun-advocates-call-for-sensible-gun-safety-admit-connecticut-shooting-changed-everything/" target="_blank">Meanwhile, lawmakers</a> plan to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/16/1342291/senator-vows-to-introduce-new-assault-weapons-ban-on-the-first-day-of-congress/">introduce</a> a renewed ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Advocates have also called on states to post their mental health records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and additional legislation requiring full background check on all gun transactions. Polls show that even NRA members <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/15/1341181/the-5-sensible-gun-safety-regulations-that-even-nra-members-support/">back</a> these reforms. </blockquote>
Who are these 31 Senators who refused to go on Meet the Press? I am still looking after being to 11 websites. Will post an update when I find it out the names of the 31 Senators:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Yet, even as right-wing pundits continued to name gun control as a reason that the killer took so many lives, producers at NBC’s <em>Meet the Press</em> were unable to get a single pro-gun senator to appear on the show the Sunday after the tragedy. All 31 gun-loving senators who will have seats in the new Congress were invited, <a href="https://twitter.com/BetsyMTP/status/280318090376527874">according to</a> executive producer Betsy Fischer Martin. </blockquote>
Think it can safely be said that Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) was one of them but he was on a hunting trip this weekend and reason for his unavailability. The Senator told the Joe Scarborough show this morning that everything is on the table. Envision this would have been a Teddy Roosevelt response by the Senator. Called his office and thanked him for his comments on Morning Joe. The aide I talked to was very nice -- you could tell he agreed with the Senator's stance.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Manchin’s comments followed<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/17/1343541/life-long-gun-advocates-call-for-sensible-gun-safety-admit-connecticut-shooting-changed-everything/" target="_blank"> Joe Scarborough’s declaration of support for gun safety</a>. The former Florida Congressman received the NRA’s highest ratings over his four terms in Congress, but on Monday he opened Morning Joe with a monologue in which he admitted that the tragedy “changed everything.” Scarbrough called for a comprehensive approach that addresses what he called “the toxic brew of a violent popular culture, a growing mental health cris, and the proliferation of combat-styled weapons”:</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
SCARBOROUGH: I knew that day that <strong>the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children</strong>. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across america. <strong>And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-styled, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want</strong>. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas. It’s time for politicians to start focusing more on protecting our school yards than putting together their next fund-raiser.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/17/joe-manchin-time-to-act-on-guns/" target="_blank">Joe Manchin: Time to act on guns</a></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Posted by <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/ABDMyKP_page.html" rel="author external" title="Visit Rachel Weiner’s website">Rachel Weiner</a> on December 17, 2012 at <span class="get-the-time">8:40 am</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), a conservative Democrat and National Rifle Association member, said Monday that after the shooting in Newtown, Conn., on Friday, it’s time to discuss new regulations on assault weapons. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I dont know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” Manchin told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” ”I don’t know anyone that needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/newtown-school-shooting-victims/">Twenty children and six adults</a> were killed Friday by a man firing a military-style semiautomatic weapon. The massacre, Manchin said, “changed the dialogue, and it should move beyond dialogue. We need action.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Never before have we seen our babies slaughtered,” the senator said. “Anybody that’s a proud gun owner, anybody that’s a proud member of the NRA, we’re also proud parents. We’re also proud grandparents.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
He said the gun lobby should be part of that conversation. Manchin got an “A” rating and an endorsement from the NRA in both the 2010 special election and 2012 general election. In a memorable campaign ad, he <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/joe-manchin-shoots-at-cap-and.html">shot</a> a copy of a cap-and-trade bill with a rifle. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I want to call all our friends in NRA, and sit down,” he said. “Bring them into it. They have to be at the table. We all have to.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
On Twitter Monday morning, Manchin emphasized his desire for action:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a class="screen-name u-url" data-screen-name="Sen_JoeManchin" href="https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin"><span class="avatar"><img alt="" class="u-photo" src="https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1231777784/jm3_portrait_normal.jpg" /></span> <span class="p-name">Senator Joe Manchin</span><span class="p-nickname">@<b>Sen_JoeManchin</b></span></a><br />
This awful massacre has changed where we go from here. Our conversation should move beyond dialogue.<br />
<span class="dt-updated " title="17 Dec 2012, 0:52:47 PM (UTC)"><a class="view-details" href="https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin/statuses/280656790914473984"> 17 Dec 12</a></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
Can truthfully say that former Florida Congressman Joe Scarborough speaks for me on the issue of gun control. Believe there are a lot of us who have evolved on the issue over the years as we have seen what guns in the wrong hands can do. Innocent people are getting killed every day but looks like this tragedy and murder of 20 innocent children is the tipping point with a majority of Americans to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban and stop the sale of the large capacity clips for civilian use. No civilian should have a military/law enforcement type weapon and magazine. <br />
<br />
We are protected by our military including the National Guard which is the organized Constitutional militia. We do not need a citizen militia -- same type of militia that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were members. The unauthorized militia frankly scare me with their rhetoric against minorities. Many of their websites remind you of Nazi's not Americans. These sites give you the creeps when researching.<br />
<br />
Then there is this from the morons of 'hate speech' who objected to the President's speech last night being carried when there was a Sunday Night Football game on the TV. I am this huge football fan but I watched the President's speech and the Memorial Service on MSNBC which I thought was much more important to find out exactly what the President had to say. These people couldn't just say they were mad that the President interrupted their viewing of the football game between the 49's and Patriots, they had to go off in using derogatory language against a sitting President. How much of this language has been perpetrated by the hate emanating from conservative pundits and talk radio/TV?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://deadspin.com/5968935/take-that-nigger-off-the-tv-we-wanna-watch-football-idiots-respond-to-nbc-pre+empting-sunday-night-football" target="_blank">“Take That "N....." Off The TV, We Wanna Watch Football!”: Idiots Respond To NBC Pre-Empting <em>Sunday Night Football</em></a></span><img border="0" class="avatar" src="http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17qv83mc7vwf5jpg/avt-small.jpg" width="14" /> <strong><a class="plus-icon modfont" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3784561315774230886">Timothy Burke</a></strong>NBC pre-empted the first quarter of tonight's 49ers-Patriots game to show President Obama's speech at the Newtown memorial for victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. As you might expect, many football fans didn't take kindly to this. (So, too, some <em>Bob's Burgers</em> fans.) Here are those idiots, led by someone who claims to be a Division II football player in the state of Alabama. [Update: The <em>Birmingham News</em> <a href="http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/north_alabama_player_tweets_ra.html">reports he was a walk-on long snapper</a> and is no longer on the team.</blockquote>
</header><br />
<div class="clear">
</div>
<!-- END UTILITY BAR --> <br />
<div class="entry-content">
From <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/5_craziest_right_wing_responses_to_sandy_hook/" target="_blank">Salon</a> comes the five examples of the hard right and their not facing reality on guns -- same hard right that fosters the hatred against the President:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Here we offer five examples of the stunning lack of compassion and twisted logic expressed by right-wing leaders in response to a slaughter of children by the son of a gun enthusiast. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>1. Ann Coulter: Everybody should carry a concealed firearm.</strong> The killings took place in the morning, and by 11:07 a.m., Ann Coulter, the publicity seeker whose big, bad mouth gives the little black dress a bad name, was touting concealed-carry laws as the answer to America’s massacre problem. Coulter’s first tweet on the subject came so soon after the killings, that there was no definitive count yet of the number of people who had perished: ”Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. - <a href="http://t.co/EV9fgIvi" title="http://bit.ly/VGDNBo">bit.ly/VGDNBo</a>”<br />
Well, that seemed to do the trick for a woman who never found a tragedy she couldn’t exploit, for by 11:30, she tweeted <a href="https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/279669733618503681">this</a>: “I’m on Hannity radio today, talking about the 1 public policy that provably reduces the incidence of, and deaths from, mass shootings.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And that, boys and girls, is how to work the Twitter machine for self-promotion on the backs of slaughtered children. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It’s not the first time that Coulter has expressed her love for guns in the wake of murder. At a Florida church in 2007, I heard Coulter describe the assassination of a doctor who performed abortions as “a procedure performed on him with a rifle.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>2. Mike Huckabee: Massacre the result of church-state separation.</strong>Apparently, former Arkansas governor and pastor Mike Huckabee thinks that if only the Constitution had been rewritten to allow for the mandatory worship of his God in public schools, the massacre would not have happened. It’s unclear from Huckabee’s remarks, made on the Fox News Channel’s <em>Your World</em> show (Huckabee also has his own show on the cable channel), whether he was saying that if only killer Adam Lanza had gotten religion during his public school education, he wouldn’t have killed, or if Huckabee was suggesting that God was punishing a public school for not allowing organized worship in the classroom. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“We ask why there is violence in our schools but we have systematically removed God from our schools,” Huckabee told host Neil Cavuto. “Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?”<br />
Media Matters has the <a href="http://www.mediamatters.org/video/2012/12/14/huckabee-schools-become-a-place-of-carnage-when/191864">clip</a>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>3. Bryan Fischer: God let massacre happen in public school because he’s not wanted there.</strong> Bryan Fischer, the noxious radio-show host and spokesperson for the anti-gay hate group known as the American Family Association, <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-god-didnt-stop-ct-school-shooting-because-hes-gentleman-who-doesnt-go-where-he-not-w">put the blame</a> for the massacre squarely on the Supreme Court, which outlawed organized public school prayer in 1962, as seen in this <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-god-didnt-stop-ct-school-shooting-because-hes-gentleman-who-doesnt-go-where-he-not-w">clip</a> captured by Right Wing Watch. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I think God would say to us, ‘Hey, I’d be glad to protect your children, but you’ve got to invite me back into your world first,’” Fischer told his listeners. “‘I’m not gonna go where I’m not wanted; I am a gentleman.’” Fischer continued in his imagined voice of God. So much of a gentleman is Fischer’s God that the Almighty would await an invitation before rushing in to protect 20 children from being gunned down. Thank goodness the police and firefighters who responded were so terribly rude. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>4. Glenn Beck: Killings caused by soul problems.</strong> Taking to his Twitter stream, Glenn Beck was quick to <a href="https://twitter.com/glennbeck/status/279683077079449600">tweet</a>, at 12:24 p.m.: “Our communities are suffering and it is because of the ever expanding lack of self control & personal responsibility.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Tweeter Val Farrelly <a href="https://twitter.com/valfarly/status/279683435826667520">replied</a>: “It’s nothing to do with self control and everything to do with a lack of gun control.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Another Beck gem about the shootings: “It is not the gun. It is the soul.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>5. Louie Gohmert: If only Sandy Hook principal had an assault rifle, everyone would have been saved. </strong>Speaking to host Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, the Republican congressman from Texas let loose with this, as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/louie-gohmert-guns_n_2311379.html">transcribed</a> by the Huffington Post:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Chris, I wish to God she had had an M4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out … and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids,” Gohmert said.</blockquote>
The M4 is the rifle favored by the U.S. military; you can view its specs on <a href="http://www.colt.com/ColtMilitary/Products/ColtM4Carbine.aspx">the site of its manufacturer</a>, Colt. Yeah, that’ll fix everything.</blockquote>
This is only a sampling of what has been said by the hard right gun rights community. Huckabee tried to walk his comments back but then I think made them worse on his show on Fox yesterday:<br />
<br />
<div class="left_column">
<div class="content_pages_show_blog_post">
<div id="content">
<div id="intro">
<div class="content">
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.newshounds.us/huckabee_i_didn_t_mean_prayer_in_school_would_have_stopped_newtown_school_shooting_i_meant_more_christianity_12162012" target="_blank">On Friday, Neil Cavuto asked me</a>, “Where was God?” And I said that for 50 years, we’ve systematically attempted to have God removed from our schools, our public activities. But then at the moment we have a calamity, we wonder where He was. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Well, the predictable left lit up the airwaves and blogosphere with a vile and vicious reaction and jumped to the conclusion that I said that if we had prayer in school, the shooting wouldn’t have happened. Well, I said nothing of the sort. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>It’s far more than just taking prayer or Bible reading out of the schools. It’s the fact that people sue a city so we aren’t confronted with a manger scene or a Christmas carol. That lawsuits are filed to remove a cross that’s a memorial to fallen soldiers. Churches and Christian-owned businesses are told to surrender their values under the edict of government orders to provide tax-funded abortions pills. We carefully and intentionally stop saying things are sinful. We call them ‘disorders.’ Sometimes, we even say they’re normal. And to get to where that we have to abandon bedrock moral truths, then we’ll ask well, where was God.</strong> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong> </strong><br />
And I respond that, as I see it, we’ve escorted him right out of our culture and we’ve marched him off the public square and then we express our surprise that a culture without him actually reflects what it’s become. As soon as the tragedy unfolded, I think God did show up. He showed up in the lives of teachers who put their lives between a gunman and their students. He showed up in policemen who rushed into the school not knowing if they would be met with a barrage of bullets. He showed up in the form of hugs and tears for children, parents and teachers who would live through the slaughter. He showed up at the overflowed church services where people lit candles and prayed. <strong>And he showed up at the White House where the president invoked His name and quoted from His book</strong>. And in a few days or weeks, we’ll probably ask God to excuse himself from view and we will announce, in our arrogant pride, that we’re now enlightened and educated and we’ve evolved beyond needing him. And somebody’s going to suggest that we pass a law to stop all this kind of thing. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>I might want to point out that we don’t have to pass a new law. There’s one that’s been around a while that works if we teach it and observe it: Thou shalt not kill. Oh, there are about nine others. But to tell you about ‘em would require bringing God back and we know how unacceptable that might be. </strong></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I don’t know… It seems to me that at a time like this, an <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-3193621.html" target="_blank">ordained Baptist minister</a> like Huckabee might be thinking more about reaching out and doing his best to comfort the afflicted. After all, some of those directly affected by this massacre might well be the kinds of people who don’t believe in having religion or religious symbols in a public square and support President Obama’s mandate that contraception be covered by health insurance. Instead, Huckabee is doubling down on his evangelizing – and sounding downright resentful while he's at it. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Read More at<a href="http://www.newshounds.us/huckabee_i_didn_t_mean_prayer_in_school_would_have_stopped_newtown_school_shooting_i_meant_more_christianity_12162012" target="_blank"> Newshounds</a></blockquote>
The bottom line is that we can no longer put our heads in the sand and bow to the gun lobby by staying silent. Too many people have been killed with legally obtained high powered guns with large magazines. It is legal to buy a high powered rifle with large capacity gun magazines from a non-registered gun dealer and not have to have a background check or anything recorded. Those rules put in place on gun/ammunition sales are only for registered gun dealers. Even some of those have been watered down by the Republicans in Congress and in state legislatures over the years to where the rules are a joke. The joke time is over and many Americans like me are demanding action out of their elected officials for common sense gun control. </div>
</div>
<div id="like_rectangle">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-67376895218075794472012-12-16T14:26:00.000-06:002012-12-16T14:26:01.846-06:00Will Congress Pass Reasonable Gun Legislation or will the NRA/GOA win again?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<b><a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oklahoma-student-plotting-mass-shooting-police-article-1.1221032#ixzz2FExUdoND" target="_blank"><br /></a></b> </blockquote>
This morning I attended my grandson's Christmas program at St. Joseph's where the pre-K were brought on stage to join with the older students to sing two songs. He had been practicing at home for this morning and was so happy. As I was sitting there watching the Christmas pageant put on by K-5th graders, I was reminded of what happened in Newtown, CT, on Friday which is too horrific for words. No one except a deranged person walks into a school and shoots children five and six years old along with their teachers.<br />
<br />
Know that increased gun laws would not have prevented this tragedy since the guns were legally obtained by his Mother who he shot before heading to the school, but the fact the gun lobby of NRA and GOA came out with such ridiculous statements talking about arming teachers is ludicrous. They don't have the training and you cannot have a loaded gun in the classroom. What happens if the teacher leaves her class and a student gets the loaded guns and shoots? <br />
<br />
These comments from the Gun Owners of America (GOA) made my blood boil:<br />
<div class="content">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">"Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on
their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no
administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were
murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in
school zones."</span></blockquote>
— Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/what-happened-newtown-connecticut-elementary-school-shooting" target="_blank" title="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/what-happened-newtown-connecticut-elementary-school-shooting"><span style="color: #f81f0c;">responding to Friday’s
tragedy</span></a>.</div>
<br />
Attitudes like GOA and NRA leadership doesn't even match that of a lot of its members who have more common sense in their little finger then leadership of either organization. I found this editorial this afternoon which I have excerpted from Politicususa which details what so many of us are finding so hard to understand why the NRA and GOA are pushing guns for everyone with basically no laws. Please visit the site to read the entire editorial.<br />
<div id="title-box">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://www.politicususa.com/nras-beloved-gun-culture-killed-20-innocent-children-conservatives-care.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politicus+USA+%29#comment-234879" target="_blank">The NRA’s Beloved Gun Culture Killed 20 Children and Conservatives Don’t Care</a></b><br />
By: Rmuse<span style="padding-left: 15px;">Dec. 15th, 2012</span> </blockquote>
</div>
<!-- title-box --> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Every society develops characteristic features based on values, accepted social practices, and patterns of knowledge shared by people in a place or time they pass on to succeeding generations. Culture includes customary beliefs, social norms, and material traits of a group that identifies a society whether for good or bad outcomes. Over four years ago, conservatives and gun-rights advocates began taking advantage of hatred for an African American man the people elected as President to advance the culture of guns by claiming Americans should fear the President ‘s secret intention to disarm the nation. In part, the right promoted the concept that individualism and freedom to express that individualism through gun ownerships has helped divide the nation and prevent communal principles that are necessary for a successful society. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The mindset among so-called individualists that their right to keep and bear arms defines what it means to be an American was embraced early on by conservatives guilty of promoting the idea that there is a movement afoot to rob them of their individualism by taking away their guns. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The tragic and senseless slaughter of 20 children and six adults in Connecticut yesterday is a reminder that America’s culture of guns, when coupled with the antagonism from conservatives that gun ownership is under threat, contributes to divisiveness preventing America from moving away from the Wild West mentality plaguing our culture. A firearm is an inanimate object, and not in-and-of-itself guilty of crime, and the shooter in Connecticut obviously suffered from a mental disorder to open fire on innocent 5 to 10 year old children, but if he had not been heavily armed, the tragedy may have been prevented. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The concept of a well-armed populace is being pushed across America and reinforced by ALEC-inspired Stand Your Ground laws with fervent support by the National Rifle Association, and despite the rise in gun violence, a contingent of conservative gun rights groups promoting individualism is contributing to the proliferation of guns in America. The move to arm every man, woman, and child in America has inspired legislators to transform so-called “gun free zones” into war zones based on an individual’s right to keep and bear arms; even in innocuous environments like elementary schools and churches. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Shortly after news of the tragedy in Connecticut, evangelical maniac and alleged follower of Christ, Bryan Fischer, commented on social media outlet Twitter that <b>“<i>Shooters attack an elementary school in CT. – another “gun-free zone.” Makes children sitting ducks</i>.”</b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Leave it to a sick bible-thumping, conservative mind like Fischer to politicize a tragedy, which is precisely the argument conservatives use to attack gun-control advocates in the wake of tragedies like the one in Connecticut on Friday. Instead of addressing the proliferation of guns in America, every new tragedy inspires gun advocates to expand public areas where Americans can carry weapons. It appears their goal is to eventually eliminate gun free zones to get America back to its rugged individualistic roots as a “gunfighter nation” making any attempt at reasonable gun-control legislation impossible. For many, many Americans, and especially to 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment devotees, any gun-control is acutely un-American. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Gun-rights activists point to the 2nd Amendment as proof it is a right to be armed and dangerous at all times, and in all places, however, they omit the phrase, and reason, the founders included the amendment in the Constitution to begin with; “A well regulated Militia,” that for over two hundred years has meant the Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps, has shifted to mean an unregulated gun-toting populace. It is an unfortunate omission that has reinforced what so many in this nation believe; their right to own and carry arms supersedes reasonable restrictions on weapons typical of battlefields, but are becoming prevalent in homes, cars, and public places and if conservatives have their way, schools, churches, and shopping malls as gun-free zones will be eliminated to make every American a member of an unregulated militia.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Read More at <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/nras-beloved-gun-culture-killed-20-innocent-children-conservatives-care.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politicus+USA+%29#comment-234879" target="_blank">Politicususa</a></blockquote>
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920">While watching the tragedy unfold in Connecticut, the news story broke in Oklahoma about a teenager in Bartlesville which is about 40 miles north of Tulsa plotting to attack the high school including using bombs in addition to shooting students/teachers/administrators. Then news came out that a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/alabama-hospital-shooting-wounded-gunman-killed_n_2307505.html" target="_blank">gunman had opened fire</a> in a hospital in Birmingham, Alabama, firing at an officer and two employees before being shot dead by another officer. Then last night word came across that there was a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-fires-50-shots-calif-mall-parking-lot-17987931" target="_blank">man shot off 50 rounds</a> in a parking lot outside a CA mall who is now in custody. No one was injured in CA mall shooting.</span></span><br />
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"><br /></span></span>
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920">What is frightening is the fact that this student from Bartlesville was plotting this shooting when another student overheard and went to school authorities. What if they had not overheard? Would Bartlesville have been another Columbine?</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h1 class="entry-title" property="dc:title">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oklahoma-student-plotting-mass-shooting-police-article-1.1221032#ixzz2FF1tH142" target="_blank">Okla. teen arrested in school shooting plot</a></span></span></span></h1>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"><i>Plot included luring kids into the auditorium, detonating bombs in Bartlesville, Okla. Sammie Eaglebear Chavez's deadly plan for Bartlesville High School was thwarted hours after Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. Another student turned Chavez in.</i></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h1 class="entry-title" property="dc:title">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span></h1>
<h2>
</h2>
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920">By <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/authors?author=Jonathan%20Lemire" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" rel="author"><span itemprop="name">Jonathan Lemire</span> </a> / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS </span></span><br />
<div class="authorBlk">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"><span property="dc:creator"><span style="display: none;">No Author</span> <span class="published" title="2012-12-15 15:45:23"> Published: December 15, 2012</span></span> </span></span></div>
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920">
</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920">Hours after the bloodshed at a Connecticut school, police stopped what would have been a second mass school-shooting on Friday, arresting an Oklahoma teenager plotting to kill dozens of his classmates. </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"> Sammie Eaglebear Chavez, 18, told friends at Bartlesville High School that he wanted to lure their schoolmates and teachers to the gym and then open fire, according to officials.<br /> He also claimed to have explosives he planned to detonate once police arrived. </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"> A classmate overheard Chavez scheming on Thursday and cops arrested him early Friday before he could carry out his plan. A judge in the small city of Bartlesville, which lies about an hour north of Tulsa, ordered that Chavez be held on $1 million bail. </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"> Investigators believe Chavez owned a Colt .45 handgun and had been researching how to obtain explosives and higher-powered firearms. He also frequently discussed the 1999 shootings at Columbine High school. </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"> The motive for the plot was not immediately known. Investigators do not suspect the scheme was linked to or inspired by the shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children dead.<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"><br /></span></span><span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"><br /></span></span><span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920">Read more: <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oklahoma-student-plotting-mass-shooting-police-article-1.1221032#ixzz2FExUdoND" target="_blank"><b>NY Daily News</b></a></span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920">Additional details have the teen being held under $1 million bond and will be in court on January 11th. </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"><a href="http://newsok.com/oklahoma-teen-arrested-in-bartlesville-school-shooting-plot/article/feed/476110" target="_blank"><b>Okla. teen arrested in school shooting plot</b></a></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"><span property="dc:creator"><span class="published" title="2012-12-15 15:45:23">Published: December 15, 2012</span></span> </span></span><span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
BARTLESVILLE, Okla. (AP) — Hours before a gunman opened fire at a Connecticut elementary school, police in Oklahoma arrested a teenager for allegedly plotting to attack his high school and trying to recruit classmates to help him.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Police in Bartlesville, a community about 40 miles north of Tulsa, arrested 18-year-old Sammie Eaglebear Chavez shortly before 5 a.m. Friday on charges of conspiring to cause serious bodily harm or death. He remained in Washington County Jail on Saturday on $1 million bond, and he is due in court Jan. 11. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Read More: <a href="http://newsok.com/oklahoma-teen-arrested-in-bartlesville-school-shooting-plot/article/feed/476110" target="_blank"><b>The Oklahoman</b></a></blockquote>
<br />
Doubt if Chavez is going to be leaving detention any time soon with a $1M bond, but it is scary to think they had make it an order that he stay away from Bartlesville schools and weapons. Still has not been realized what they found at his home when they did a search warrant and made an arrest early Friday morning:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Police arrested Chavez at his home in the 100 block of Southwest Adeline Avenue about 4:50 a.m. Friday on a warrant signed by Special Judge John Gerkin, Bartlesville Police Capt. Jay Hastings said. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Chavez, who was arraigned Friday afternoon in court, is in the Washington County Detention Center. As a condition of his bond, DeLapp ordered Chavez to stay away from Bartlesville schools and from weapons. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Read More at <b><a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121214_11_0_BARTLE641724" target="_blank">Tulsa World</a></b></blockquote>
If the Bartlesville incident wasn't enough in Oklahoma, last night it was released that someone left a loaded handgun in the bedroom where a three-year old could get the gun and shot and killed himself. What is a loaded handgun doing within the reach of a little boy?<b> </b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://newsok.com/oklahoma-3-year-old-dies-in-accidental-shooting-authorities-say/article/3738015" target="_blank">Oklahoma 3-year-old dies in accidental shooting, authorities say</a></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"> The boy, whose name and hometown have not been released, was visiting the home of a relative about four miles southeast of Guthrie when he found the loaded handgun in a bedroom. </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920"> <span class="dateline">GUTHRIE —</span> A 3-year-old boy is dead after shooting himself in the head early Saturday afternoon, authorities said. </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920">The boy was visiting a relative at a home in the 1500 block of Derby Lane, about four miles southeast of Guthrie. He found a loaded handgun in a bedroom, Logan County sheriff's Capt. Richard Stephens said. </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="dateline"><span class="toLocalTime" data-tlt-epoch-time="1343140920">Read More at <a href="http://newsok.com/oklahoma-3-year-old-dies-in-accidental-shooting-authorities-say/article/3738015" target="_blank"><b>The Oklahoman</b></a></span></span></blockquote>
This article from Alternet appeared this summer which shows five ways the laws can be changed and there is <a href="http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/how-gun-industry-made-fortune-stoking-fears-obama-would-take-peoples-guns-ammo" target="_blank">no confiscation of guns by Obama</a> no matter how much the NRA, GOA, and the hard right say the Government wants to take their guns. This is an outright lie and they know it, but it is good for gun sales. When I saw the loophole for gun shows, I went through the roof. If you don't buy from a registered gun dealer at a gun show there is no background check or anything else. Then I learned Oklahoma is one of the states that still allows guns and ammunition to be bought on line.<br />
<br />
<div class="articleContent">
<div id="paragraph5">
Alternet has done the reasearch to come up with <a href="http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/5-issues-divide-gun-owners-and-nra-leadership" target="_blank"> five key issues that divide the LaPierres at the top of the NRA food chain </a>from their 3 million (or 4 million, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/nra-misplaces-a-million-m_b_98429.html" target="_blank">depending upon the press release that day</a>) members:</div>
<div id="paragraph6">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<div>
<strong>1. </strong><strong>Gun Show Loophole</strong><br />
Currently, in over 30 states, one can walk into a local gun show and purchase a weapon from a “private seller,” who does not have to conduct any kind of background check. For example, a .50 caliber sniper rifle, which can take down a helicopter. The NRA has fought to block any and all efforts to pass a federal law closing this infamous gun show loophole, as well as any efforts in the states. (But remember, they are anti-crime!) </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<div>
Timothy McVeigh was once one of these “private sellers” on the gun-show circuit, and everyone from the Columbine killers to members of Hezbollah have obtained firearms this way. Not surprisingly, just like most other sentient beings (including 85% of gun owners not in the NRA), <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/16/opinion/la-ed-guns16-2009dec16" target="_blank">69% of NRA members</a>, when polled by conservative Republican Frank Luntz, think this loophole should be closed. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<div>
<strong>2. </strong><strong>Terror Gap</strong><br />
If you are put on the U.S. terror watch list you cannot board an airplane. You can, however, still purchase guns and explosives. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/closing-the-terror-gap-and-the-gun-show-loophole/2011/06/06/AGTKubKH_story.html" target="_blank">According to the Government Accountability Office</a>, “From February 2004 through February 2010, 1,228 individuals on the watch list underwent background checks to purchase firearms or explosives; 1,119, or 91 percent, of these transactions were approved." </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<div>
NRA members understand this even if their leadership stubbornly tries to protect the gun-ownership rights of terrorists (but they’re patriots, I tell you!). <a href="http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf" target="_blank">Eighty-two percent of NRA members</a> think this gap should be closed. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<div>
<strong>3. </strong><strong>Tiahrt Amendments</strong><br />
Named in honor of all-around clod, former Kansas Republican Congressman Todd Tiahrt, this is part of the NRA’s constant effort to hamper, harass and harangue any government effort to get to the bottom of how guns came to be used in a crime. These amendments, attached to federal spending bills, do their best to severely limit law enforcement's ability to access, use and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
Not surprisingly, while these are a big hit at NRA HQ and among those members of Congress so graced with their campaign contributions, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/16/opinion/la-ed-guns16-2009dec16" target="_blank">69% of their own members</a> have come to the logical conclusion that this is a pretty bad idea, as have 74% of non-NRA gun owners who think there should be no barriers to information-sharing between federal agencies and police when it comes to gun crimes.<br />
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<strong>4. </strong><strong>Reporting Lost and Stolen Guns</strong><br />
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
Supporting provisions requiring this would seem to be only common sense. But there is not much of that present among the NRA’s leadership. For example, the NRA has not only fought all efforts to make reporting lost or stolen guns to the police a requirement, but in Pennsylvania, where scores of cities and townships have picked up the slack by passing these measures themselves, the fine Americans and conservative-lawsuit-abuse haters at the NRA <a href="http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/house-to-nra-sue-our-cities-1.1327164" target="_blank">have actually threatened to sue</a> to overturn these laws. Yes, you read that correctly, our friends who love state and local rights when it comes to allowing a kid to stay on their parent's healthcare policy until they are 26, don't feel so much the same way about guns.<br />
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
NRA members would seem to disagree: <a href="http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf" target="_blank">78% of them think this provision would be a good idea</a>, as do 88% of non-NRA gun owners.<br />
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<strong>5. Sharing Records With National Instant Background Check System (NICS)</strong><br />
The Fix Gun Checks Act, modeled on i<a href="http://www.fixgunchecks.org/" target="_blank">deas developed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns</a>, was introduced in the wake of the carnage at Tucson by, among others, Senator Chuck Schumer in March 2011. Besides closing the gun-show loophole (see #1), it also sought to fix a huge problem in the current federal background check system--a lax attitude by many states and some federal institutions in sharing records of those ineligible to buy firearms due to criminal record or mental health defects.<br />
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
For example, Seung-Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, had been declared mentally unfit by a judge in Virginia, and Jared Loughner had been rejected by the military for admitted drug use. Both of these men never should have been able to get anywhere near buying a gun legally. But these records were never shared.<br />
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
The Fix Gun Checks Act would provide both incentives and penalties to states so that all these records are shared in as timely a manner as possible. But NRA leadership has gone to war with this bill, as with all other efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unfit. <br />
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
Yet, <a href="http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr020-11.shtml" target="_blank">a poll of swing-state voters</a> taken around the time the bill was introduced showed overwhelming support for this concept among gun owners. In Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, Arizona and (most ironically, and sadly) Colorado, more than 82% of gun owners believed states should be fully funded in their efforts to share these records, while 91% supported requiring federal agencies to share information on potentially dangerous persons such as Loughner.<br />
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="toggle-group target hideOnInit" data-toggle-group="story-12963068" style="opacity: 1;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So there you have it. Five measures, none of which would violate the very broad reading of the Second Amendment recently given by ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia; all of which would have an immediate impact in terms of making our families safer, in a country where 34 people are murdered by guns every day–or one Virginia Tech every single day of the year. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Read More a<a href="http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/5-issues-divide-gun-owners-and-nra-leadership" target="_blank"> <b>Alternet</b></a></blockquote>
Time for change to take place and <b>NO MORE LOOPHOLES</b> that people could drive a Mack Truck through. This is the time for common sense Americans to tell the NRA and GOA leadership to go pound salt along with some conservative commentators like <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/mike-huckabee-school-shooting_n_2303792.html" target="_blank">Mike Huckabee,</a><a href="http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/12/14/rush-limbaugh-liberals-already-hatching-a-plan-to-blame-newtown-shooting-on-conservatives-republicans/" target="_blank"> Rush</a>, <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/ann-coulter-suggests-school-shooting-prevented-kindergarteners-guns.html" target="_blank">Ann Coulter</a>, and others who comments made me ill to think people could be so callous. The facts don't lie:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/conservatives-newtown-shooting-twitter" target="_blank">In just the past four years</a>, the NRA has helped pass weaker <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012">gun restrictions</a> in 37 states, making the weapons easier to own, carry and conceal. At the same time, the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation?page=1">number of mass shootings has increased in America</a>.</blockquote>
Don't you think it is time we acted responsibly to protect our children and every American citizen as much as humanly possible to strengthen some of the laws that have been weakened to the extent we might as well not have any gun laws which is what NRA and GOA leadership seem to want. Time for those of us who oppose the stands of the NRA to quit being silent and speak out that we want reasonable gun laws. A lot of us are not looking to take anyone's guns but there is no need for large magazines that can shoot off 30-100 rounds before reloading. Close the Gun Show loophole and require a national database to be kept current. If a soldier is dishonorably discharged, that should be in the data base. If someone is treated for mental illness, add them to the national data base. Not all military should be carrying guns. <br />
<br />
Time to vote out anyone opposing reasonable gun laws because those do not hurt common sense gun owners. </div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-38952838436530517012012-12-14T14:30:00.001-06:002012-12-14T14:43:36.777-06:00How Many More Senseless Killings Before Meaningful Action Takes Place?UPDATE: 2:40 with video of Obama speaking to the Nation added<br />
<br />
Cannot imagine what a parent would go through after hearing this on the news until they could find their children at the school. Eighteen of those parents will never be able to talk to their Kindergarten children again. God be with the parents, family, and friends who are affected by this horrendous shooting. It brings tears to your eyes to realize that this Christmas, their children won't be with them because of a crazed gunman who had access to guns and ammunition. <br />
<br />
This is not only extremely sad but makes your blood boil when you realize that even discussing gun control is off limits. Time to put it back on the agenda. <br />
<br />
If this doesn't wake up America, then nothing will. There is too much hate in this Country for over a year from the hard right. Time to wake up and realize something has to be done.<br />
<br />
An emotional President Obama is now calling for meaningful action on guns no matter the politics. I support this 100%. <br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-Xw_kbGzZvI?feature=player_embedded" width="640"></iframe> </center>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-37623480851435193562012-12-13T19:31:00.001-06:002012-12-13T19:31:43.957-06:00Will the House GOP Allow Tax Cuts to Expire for All Rather then Raise Taxes on the Wealthy?The lies and misstatements coming out of Republicans today is nothing short of stunning. They have jumped the shark so many times that most of us have lost count. Now Boehner and GOP leadership want to hold the debt ceiling hostage again to get their way and cost the taxpayers more money? <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/13/1330251/boehner-debt-ceiling-understand/" target="_blank"> Boehner’s fundamental misunderstanding</a> of the debt ceiling (or his willingness to publicly lie about what it does) did not stop him from taking it hostage and threatening to use it to impose his version of “fiscal sanity.” Last year’s debt ceiling debacle ultimately <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/28/1248011/debt-ceiling-cost-taxpayers/">will cost taxpayers $18.9 billion</a> due to the elevated interest rates on U.S. debt issued during that period.</blockquote>
It is great to know that there are more then just a few Republicans who understand the House GOP is in the hip pocket of Norquist along with the Koch Brothers and other major donors. It doesn't seem to make them any difference that mainstream Republicans are against their stance. They may not like the results in 2014 because many of us will not forgive or forget their willingness to go over the cliff so the tax cuts disappear for all including those under $250,000 rather then raise taxes on the wealthy. Shows that the wealthy mean more to them then the majority of their voters. Now that the polls have completely turned on them, will they be willing to deal? Wouldn't bet my house on that happening with this 'stubborn like a mule' mentality out of a group of Republicans in Congress.<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
According to <a href="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=135068&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db" style="color: #990000;" title="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=135068&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db">a
new NBC News poll out last night</a>, the public overwhelmingly believes that
the election gave President Obama a “mandate” to: </blockquote>
</div>
<ul>
<li><strong>68 percent: cut taxes for working families earning less than
$250,000 a year</strong></li>
<li><strong>65 percent: reduce the federal deficit by both increasing taxes on
the wealthy and reducing federal spending</strong>
</li>
<li><strong>59 percent: eliminate the Bush tax cuts for those with higher
incomes over $250,000</strong> </li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The poll also found that a whopping <em>76
percent</em> of Americans believe that increasing taxes on the wealthy is an
“acceptable” part of any deal to avert the fiscal cliff. This is all consistent
with other polls out in recent days, including one that found <a href="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=135069&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db" style="color: #990000;" title="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=135069&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db">nearly
half of <em>Republicans</em> believe the election delivered the president a
mandate</a> to raise taxes on the wealthy. Overall, the poll found that by a 2:1
margin Americans believe the president won both a mandate on taxes and to
protect Social Security and Medicare benefits. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It’s also clear that the Republicans’
intransigence is taking its toll on the already-tarnished image of the party and
its leaders:<ul>
<li><strong>53 percent said they would <a href="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=135070&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db" style="color: #990000;" title="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=135070&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db">blame
Republicans in Congress</a> if we go over the fiscal cliff. Just 27 percent said
they would blame the president.</strong></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><strong>Just <a href="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=134990&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db" style="color: #990000;" title="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=134990&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db">25
percent approve of Boehner’s handling of the fiscal showdown</a>, compared to 49
percent who disapprove. Meanwhile, 49 percent approve of the president’s
handling of the negotiations and his overall approval rating, <a href="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=135068&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db" style="color: #990000;" title="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=135068&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db">53
percent</a>, is the highest since the killing of Osama bin Laden.</strong></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><strong>The three least popular politicians and political institutions in
the country are: <a href="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=135068&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db" style="color: #990000;" title="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=135068&elq=999163308f4f45849ec8a3e14df168db">the
Republican party, Boehner, and Mitt Romney</a>. By contrast, Obama is the third
most popular, trailing only Bill and Hillary Clinton.</strong></li>
</ul>
And overall, nearly two-thirds of Americans
agree that we need to address our fiscal problems using a balanced approach: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Leaders in Congress should make compromises to
gain consensus on the budget deficit, even if it means Democrats would have to
accept targeted spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare and
<strong>Republicans would have to accept targeted increases in tax
rates</strong>.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>BOTTOM LINE: </strong>It’s time for
Republicans to heed the will of the American people — and many of their own
conservative voters — and agree to a balanced approach that includes asking the
wealthiest Americans to pay higher tax rates, just like they did during the
economic boom we experience under President Clinton.</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
This is one big reason that the Republicans in Congress act like they won the election. Why they are afraid of this man is beyond me:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Norquist made the bizarre <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/">Wag the Dog</a></em> prediction on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal:</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 1.5em;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/13/1327631/norquist-obama-may-decide-to-go-blow-up-small-countries/" target="_blank"><b>NORQUIST:</b> </a>We got lots of things Obama claims to be for, and we will make — we, the Republicans in the House and Senate — will make him actually make those spending restraints, in order to get the continuing resolution out [for] a week, two weeks, a month. Obama will be on a very short leash, fiscally speaking, over the next four years. He’s not gonna have any fun at all. <strong>He may decide to go blow up small countries he can’t pronounce because it won’t be any fun to be here, because he won’t be able to spend the kind of cash he was hoping to.</strong> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong></strong>Watch the video: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="260" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hgOHLGzzNqA" width="400"></iframe><br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is noteworthy that Norquist says “we” when referring to the Congressional Republicans. This would seem to conflict with his group’s frequent <a href="http://www.atr.org/americans-tax-reform-releases-list-washington-a7333">claim</a> that it is a “a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases.” And it seems to ignore the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/30/1259051/22-republicans-norquist/">50 Congressional Republicans</a> who have already distanced themselves from his ironclad oath.</blockquote>
Did those 50 really break from Norquist is the question of the day? Could it be that they are doing so only for public consumption and will vote with leadership against raising taxes on the wealthy? We should know shortly if those 50 are telling the truth. I will have to see their votes to raise taxes on the wealthy before I believe they are serious.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-57559026784578252042012-12-12T16:36:00.002-06:002012-12-12T16:36:56.338-06:00House GOP Fiscal Cliff Arrogant Proposal Permanently Extends Tax Cuts for the Wealthy<br />
<div class="read_more with_verticals clearfix" data-beacon="{"p":{"mnid":"follow_tags"}}" id="follow_tags">
<div class="follow_tags_cont_regular" itemprop="keywords">
Just when I think there is a sliver of light that the Republican Party gets the message from the last election, along comes Speaker Boehner and the obstructionist House Republicans. Their latest proposal is to permanently extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. Looks like the Koch Brothers, Adelson, TX Swift Boat Bob Perry, the Chamber of Commerce, and other big donors made their calls and the House GOP leadership asked 'How high do you want us to jump?'<br />
<br />
These same bunch of arrogant Republicans have the nerve to say that President Obama didn't make a serious offer? Any offer of his would be more serious then what these bullheaded Republicans are making. The American people have spoken they want to raise taxes on the wealthy but these Republicans obviously prefer to believe the fringe that they can roll Obama like they did with the last fiscal cliff. News to the GOP: Obama learned his lesson unlike you and is up to the fight as he has the vast majority of the American people behind him.<br />
<br />
What is it? Rand Paul says no to tax hikes for the wealthy along with Norquist and the House Republicans say no tax hikes for the wealthy in their offer. They are either too dumb to understand the vote on November 6th or they are bought and paid for by the Chamber and major donors who are telling them what to say. My money is on the latter. Koch Brothers must be having a field day with taking over the GOP controlling the puppets in Congress who seem to have forgotten they are elected by the people to work for us. Instead they are giving the American people the shaft once again in favor of their wealthy donors.<br />
<br />
Anyone who thinks this group of Republicans in the House would honor their pledge for real tax reform closing loopholes just be smoking something. Only thing they want to do away with is deductions for the middle class along with going after Social Security and Medicare which are not even part of the budget to pay for their not raising taxes on the wealthy. No one should trust this group of GOP as they have proven they cannot govern because governing takes compromise.<br />
<br />
Cannot write what I would really like to say after reading this article from The Huffington Post that confirmed a CNN report. <br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/gop-fiscal-cliff-tax-cuts_n_2286096.html" target="_blank"><b>GOP Fiscal Cliff Proposal Extends Tax Cuts For The Rich Permanently</b></a><br /> <span class="posted-and-updated"> Posted: <span itemprop="datePublished">12/12/2012 1:08 pm EST</span> | Updated: <span itemprop="dateModified">12/12/2012 1:12 pm EST</span></span><span class="posted-and-updated"><span itemprop="dateModified">Ryan Grim</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics"></a>WASHINGTON -- House Republicans proposed permanently extending all of the Bush-era income tax rates for the wealthy in their "fiscal cliff" offer made to the White House on Tuesday, according to a <a href="https://twitter.com/DanaBashCNN" target="_hplink">CNN report </a>and confirmed by The Huffington Post. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
House Speaker John Boehner and his Republican negotiating partners have said they don't believe the White House has made them a serious offer and that President Barack Obama has refused to budge on spending cuts. Tuesday's suggestion that all the Bush tax cuts be extended permanently was a sharp signal to the White House that Republicans don't feel the president is being reasonable. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
In the fiscal cliff negotiations, Obama has been intent on raising tax rates for income above $250,000 and seems to feel he has the leverage to do so. Permanently extending the current rates is thus a nonstarter with the White House. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Boehner, for his part, has agreed to as much as $800 billion in additional revenue, but only with commensurate spending cuts. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Sources from both parties closely involved in the talks say that the gulf between the two positions has barely narrowed over the past month. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
House Republicans say that the permanent extension of the tax rates will be made moot by their push to do comprehensive tax reform. "Our goal, as Boehner has made clear repeatedly and publicly, is a framework for comprehensive tax reform (which would make that claim moot)," said an aide to the speaker. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Boehner aide also said that tax reform would raise revenue. Source: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/gop-fiscal-cliff-tax-cuts_n_2286096.html" target="_blank">Huffington Post</a></blockquote>
<br />
Time to vote out the GOP obstructionists in the Congress in 2014 so some work can get done for the American people -- all of us not just the wealthy. Every day I think the Republican Party in Congress cannot go lower and yet they do -- day after day they sink more.<br />
<br />
There are some of us who joined Republicans for Obama in 2012. Now maybe someone will start a website for Republicans for a House Democrat majority in 2014. Never in my life did I think I would say that but as a voter I am one of those people who believe you get elected by your Party but once you take your oath, you represent all your constituents not just your Party. Somewhere that is lost on most of today's Congressional Republicans who are nothing more than puppets to their wealthy donors. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="comments_datetime_new border_none relative v05">
<a class="print-link absolute" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/gop-fiscal-cliff-tax-cuts_n_2286096.html?view=print&comm_ref=false" rel="nofollow"></a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="clear">
</div>
<div class="entry_body_text">
<div class="float_left">
<div class="ad_share_box hidden block">
<div class="ad_wrapper" id="ad_sharebox_260x60">
<script></script>
</div>
<script></script>
<script></script>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-46275556103372082682012-12-11T10:28:00.000-06:002012-12-11T10:28:38.372-06:00Mickey Edwards (R-OK): Slams Norquist Pledge '"t's not rational. And it's not adult" <br />
Now this is a Conservative I can relate to when it comes to taxes and other issues. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Edwards, a longtime conservative movement stalwart, attacked his party’s 22-year-long unwillingness to raise taxes as neither conservative, nor adult, nor rational. </blockquote>
For 22 years the Republican members of Congress have been honoring the Norquist Pledge which is simply stunning that they would be so stupid to let Norquist run the Country when it comes to income tax rates. Who died and made him king? Finding out in this article that Norquist designed this plan when he was 12 years old should make Republicans the laughing stock of the Country.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
When Moyers noted that Norquist devised his anti-tax pledge as a 12-year-old, Edwards observed “Well, you know, the fact is, the idea that, you know, ‘No, I’m not ever going to do this no matter the circumstances, no matter if we’re at war,’ whatever, it is a 12-year-old kind of thinking.” But, he noted, one “can’t just blame Grover,” as the Congressional signers or the pledge are also to responsible.</blockquote>
How stupid are Republicans in Congress who have signed the Norquist Pledge that was concocted by him as a 12 year old years ago?<br />
<br />
<div>
Wish he was still my Representative. He was gone from the House when we moved to Norman. He talks so much sense and has a way with words (understatement).</div>
<br />
<blockquote>
<b><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/10/1309941/conservative-leader-norquist-not-adul/">Top Conservative Leader Slams Norquist Pledge: ‘It’s Not Rational, And It’s Not Adult’</a></b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
By <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/author/jisrael/">Josh Israel</a> on Dec 10, 2012 at 2:10 pm </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Former Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-OK) (Credit: Gia Regan/Yale University Press)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Former Congressman Mickey Edwards (R-OK) lambasted anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and the <a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/081012-federalpledgesigners.pdf">hundreds of Republicans</a> who have signed his Americans for Tax Reform Pledge in an <a href="http://billmoyers.com/segment/mickey-edwards-on-how-conservatives-have-lost-their-way/">interview</a> with PBS’s Bill Moyers on Friday. Edwards, a longtime conservative movement stalwart, attacked his party’s 22-year-long unwillingness to raise taxes as neither conservative, nor adult, nor rational. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Edwards, who served in Congress from 1977 to 1993, was a <a href="http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/Mickey-Edwards/9325">key architect of the modern conservative movement</a>. He was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation, chaired the Republican Policy Committee, and was national chairman of the American Conservative Union for five years. He was also an adviser to Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Asked about the Norquist’s frequent boast that no Congressional Republican has voted to raise taxes since 1990, he told Moyers: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
EDWARDS: <strong>It’s certainly not Conservatism. It’s not rational. And it’s not adult.</strong> You know, when you create a program, you make a decision. You say, “I think we should conduct this war. I think that we should expand our security apparatus at home. I think that we should provide this additional benefit.” Then you pay for it. You vote to do it. And then you say, “Here’s what it’s going to cost.” And you pay for it. You know, Republicans may complain about the federal debt, but they’re as responsible as the Democrats for the debt being as large as it is. And once you have already done that, then you have an obligation to pay it down. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You know, so the idea that what you’re going to do is say– you know, “We’re not going to raise taxes, we’re not going to close loopholes, we’re not going to do anything” — that means that we’re not going to pay off what we’ve already created. <strong>I mean, that’s childish. That’s childish.</strong></blockquote>
Watch the video: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="260" mozallowfullscreen="" src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/55074246?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="400"></iframe></div>
</blockquote>
If that wasn't enough to make you think these elected members of Congress are not the brightest bulbs in the pack, check this out:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.politicususa.com/republicans-spread-holiday-hate-kill-medicare-christmas.html" target="_blank">In fiscal cliff negotiations,</a> the only specific proposal Republicans have made to date is demanding $600 billion in Medicare cuts over ten years by denying Medicare coverage to Americans during their first two years of eligibility by raising the eligibility age to 67. Because the elderly are prone to chronic conditions like cancer and diabetes which can be treated more effectively, and less expensively, with early diagnosis and intervention, it makes little fiscal sense to deny coverage to people aged 65 and 66. The result will lead to more severe infirmities, higher Medicare costs, and early death which may be the Republican’s ulterior motive and another means of cutting Medicare costs over the long haul. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If Republicans are serious about cutting Medicare costs, they should look at expenditures for unnecessary care, and <a href="http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/sick-money-how-mitt-romneys-bain-investments-are-exploding-deficit-and-harming-our">fraudulent billing</a> for care that is given. Of course, that means Republicans will have to address <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dartmouthatlas.org%2F&ei=FF_FUMv6A-fziQK6lYCADA&usg=AFQjCNGOGrUuoq9x4oZ_kHwi--p0gTbbbQ&sig2=FWdN2u9FbwVq8o2ecwNiMA">overtreatment</a> that boosts corporate profits, and especially unnecessary procedures that can lead to pain, disability, and even death in older Americans. Republicans have rejected attempts to rein in unnecessary treatment in the past, and ironically, they used the government-imposed death panels argument to ward off attempts to control excessive treatment when the reality is seniors often suffer ill-effects of profit-driven overtreatment.</blockquote>
Republicans want to cut Medicare costs by raising the age you qualify for Medicare but don't seem to be interested in cutting unnecessary care and fraudulent billing because that helps their big donors. This cut in Medicare is one thing the Republicans want in exchange for 'daring' to raise taxes on the top 2%. Don't see what cutting Medicare and Social Security have to do with raising taxes on the top 2%. Why are Republicans so obstinate in keeping the 2% tax cuts for the wealthy to the stage of alienating voters in various groups plus the middle class? Having a Presidential candidate run who paid less than 15% in income taxes when he is a multi-millionaire didn't set well with many of us.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/08/1305601/gop-congressman-explains-why-he-wont-extend-middle-class-tax-cuts-it-would-give-control-to-the-democrats/" target="_blank">One Congressman, Rep John Duncan (R-TN)</a> said he doesn't want to pass the bill to keep the Bush tax rates for those making less than $250,000 because it would give"<strong>control of the floor to the Democrats.</strong>" What? Is that what we have come to in this House -- Democrat bills all bad -- Republican bills all good. From <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/author/igor/">Igor Volsky</a> at Think Progress comes this gem:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But in a recent photo-op with constituents, Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) explained why Republicans are refusing to give in. The Tennessee Republican admitted that he won’t vote to extend tax cuts to 98 percent of Americans because doing so would <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/republican-congressmans-excuse-for-not-extending">cede control to Democrats</a>:<br /> <blockquote class="tr_bq">
CONSTITUENT 1: Are you going to sign the discharge petition?<br />DUNCAN: Ummm…Oh no, I’m not. No Ma’am. I’m not about to sign the discharge petition.<br />CONSTITUENT 2: Well if you sign the discharge petition, you’ll immediately etend the tax cuts for the middle class.<br />CONSTITUENT 1: Yea, why would you not want to do that? [...]<br />DUNCAN: <strong>It would take too long to explain that. I’m not going to give control of the floor to the Democrats.</strong>Watch it: </blockquote>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="260" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cYfOik4IQYY" width="400"></iframe></center>
</blockquote>
<br />
When you think that Republicans cannot sound any more stupid, someone comes along and proves you wrong. It is so obvious that Republicans are putting Party over the good of the Country. There is a simple solution for that problem that can be remedied in 2014 even in gerrymandered districts. The Democrats need to run candidates that independents and disgruntled Republicans can get behind. Many of us are disgusted with the Leadership of the House for playing up and coddling the Tea Party members which makes a 'compromise' impossible. It is time for Republicans to get a true wake-up call and be defeated for their obstructionism, arrogance, and stubbornness. When as a Party in the House, you are afraid to let the opposition get the credit, you have lost your way and deserve to be sent to the unemployment line.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="post">
<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-7154914147653725392012-12-10T12:05:00.001-06:002012-12-10T12:05:49.614-06:00CBS Fiscal Cliff Reports (Ben Stein Video on "Eliminating Mortgage Deduction is "Foolish")<br />
<div class="overviewHead">
Ben Stein has some of the most rational comments I have seen on reasons for keeping the mortgage deduction. When the GOP first brought up eliminating the mortgage deduction from income tax, it didn't make sense. Then your realize that the majority of Republicans involved in the talks on the 'fiscal cliff' are millionaires themselves so the mortgage deduction means little to them. <br />
<br />
The mortgage deduction may mean little to the wealthy but for the middle class who own their home, pay a mortgage, and have seen everything else rise, it means lower taxes which is money back in their pocket. It can also make a difference when people go to buy a house as the tax deduction means you can get more house for your money. <br />
<br />
The war on the middle class continues today with Republicans talking about eliminating the mortgage deduction. Why not eliminate the loopholes that have allowed people like Romney, hedge funds, and oil and gas owners to pay less interest then then middle class in income taxes. Mortgage interest, medical, state taxes, and charitable donations need to stand at least for those making under $250,000. I actually have no problem with those standing for everyone for their main property. <br />
<br />
Do Republicans want to send the housing marking into a tailspin by eliminating the mortgage deduction in order to make Obama look bad?. Note to Republican leadership: You lost and Obama is not running again. Middle class Republicans are starting to turn on House Republicans for bottling up the bill that would continue tax cuts on the middle class. They never had the Democrats support but now they are losing Republican support some of which they may never get back. <br />
<br />
Republicans need to listen to Ben Stein and quit thinking like a millionaire and remember the roots a lot of them came from which was not millionaire status. <br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">9 December 2014</span><b><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57558090/stein-eliminating-mortgage-deduction-is-foolish/" target="_blank">Stein: Eliminating mortgage deduction is "foolish"</a></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="playStoryVid" style="background-image: url(http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/12/09/opinion_620x414.jpg); cursor: pointer; height: 349px; width: 620px;">
</div>
<a class="videoOverlay playStoryVid" href="">Play CBS News Video</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span class="spTitle"><b>The
"Fiscal Cliff"</b></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
(CBS News) <i>The battle over how to reduce the federal deficit continues
this week in Washington. One of the suggestions under consideration doesn't pass
muster with our contributor Ben Stein:</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i></i><blockquote class="tr_bq">
My late father, the economist Herbert Stein, had a few favorite quotations.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
One of them was from a European thinker named Oxenstierna, if I have that
name right. The quote went simply, "Observe, my son, with what little wisdom the
world is governed." </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
This comes to mind as our nation is convulsed by fiscal problems, especially
a titanic budget deficit. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
This bipartisan mess, caused by GOP tax cuts that went too far and Democrat
spending that went too far, is stirring talk of the need for tax increases and
spending cuts. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
Some of this - tax increases on the very rich - makes perfect sense to
me.<br />But one of the ideas getting noodled around is just plain foolish. That's the
idea of junking or severely limiting, the deduction for tax purposes of interest
on home mortgages. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
Look, we are just barely limping off the bottom of a residential housing
catastrophe, and home buying and building are finally, after a genuine
nightmare, reviving. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
If we could get housing roaring back, that would go a long way towards full
recovery for our economy. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
Obviously, taking away the home mortgage interest deduction is the very last
thing the housing market needs. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
I'm not saying it would hit every home buyer, but a home is an investment. If
we lower the return on an investment, well, you get the picture. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
This bad idea is apparently meant to substitute for tax increases on the
wealthy. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
But this is strange. The rich, by definition, are RICH. That's why they
are CALLED "rich." They can afford to pay more tax. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
The middle income home buyers, or some of them, need that home mortgage
interest deduction to buy. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
So we have the question: Do we want to clobber housing, hurting millions of
homebuyers, builders, construction workers and timber people? Or tax the people
who have two Cadillacs and a Bentley? </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
How can this even be an open question? </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
Observe, my friends, with what little wisdom the world is governed.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
The last statement by Ben Stein is a keeper and describes the obstructionist Republicans we see today in the Congress. A few are waking up but a lot more need to see the light and realize they are heading down a path to defeat in 2014 because of their stubbornness in refusing to work with Democrats, The American people deserve better out of their elected representatives and the majority are disgusted with the Republicans putting Party over Country once again. <br />
<br />
Most Congressional Republicans still don't get it as they are demanding to keep the tax cuts for the wealthy (who can afford the tax increase) while continuing their attacks on seniors, poor, and middle class taxpayers. This time they are going after social security and medicare to help balance the budget while at the same time refusing to pass the bill in the House to make the Bush Tax cuts permanent for the middle class. Not a way to win votes. <br />
<br />
Are Republicans so scared of Grover Norquist that they will go off a cliff rather then vote to raise taxes on the wealthy? Today's GOP is pitting their wealthy donors against the middle class and poor. IMHO it is a dumb move to tie Social Security and Medicare to tax hikes on the wealthy because those two programs are not part of the budget as <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/hey-gop-ronald-reagan-explained-social-security-deficit.html" target="_blank">President Reagan said</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once and for all… Social security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund or reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or raising or lowering the deficit.” </blockquote>
<div>
It is absurd and abject stupidity to try and convince voters programs like Social Security and Medicare programs are entitlement programs when every working person pays into those programs out of every paycheck. Look no further then Federal Civil Service who used to be exempt from Medicare and Social Security as to see the Congress spin on both of those programs as needing civil service to participate (translation = dollars) or they were going broke in ten years. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
First one to fall was Medicare in 1983 to get more money from civil service to save Medicare. Later they split civil service into two groups in starting in 1986 -- current employees were offered a choice to stay with the regular CSRS or switch to FERS which included social security. FERS went into effect for all new hires starting in 1986. They gave the pitch in 80's on how much better FERS would be in the end but most long time civil service didn't buy the koolaid and kept the original CSRS. Have yet to hear anyone who stayed in CSRS complain about the program but have heard all kinds of complaints about FERS over the years. Then the Congress took one more step in making sure that if you retired on CSRS and worked to gain Social Security benefits that the Windfall Elimination Provision would take affect lowering your amount of Social Security benefits until you reach 30 years under Social Security.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What is it with members of Congress wanting to keep going after Social Security and Medicare like it is a giant pot of money for them in the general fund. The money out of every paycheck goes direct to Social Security and cannot be used to fund the Government today. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It hard for me to believe that these millionaires in Congress want to go after social security and medicare benefits to lower the deficit when they are not part of the budget. Why not go after the fraud in medicare like Obama has proposed? That doesn't seem to be something most GOP in Congress want to talk about. Why? Is it because they are beholding to their big donors who are involved in making profits from healthcare even if part of it comes from Medicare fraud? Always thought that was the reason they fought Obamacare as well -- wealthy donors involved in healthcare. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You are probably getting the idea that I am fed up with the current obstructionists Republicans in Congress and you would be correct. They are an insult to anyone who has the ability to think and reason. Perfect place for them is at the end of the unemployment line in 2014. </div>
<br />
<br />
Read More about the Fiscal Cliff at <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-250_162-2041/the-fiscal-cliff/" target="_blank">CBS</a>:<br />
<ul>
<li><h2 class="first">
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57558124/as-fiscal-cliff-clock-ticks-obama-hits-the-road-again/"><span style="font-size: small;">"Fiscal cliff" clock ticks, Obama hits the road</span></a></h2>
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57558124/as-fiscal-cliff-clock-ticks-obama-hits-the-road-again/"><div class="dek">
<b>The president heads to Michigan and will talk again about the economy and the middle-class</b></div>
</a> <div class="datestamp">
<span class="datePublished">December 10, 6:00 AM</span></div>
</li>
<li><h2>
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57558119-10391739/boehner-and-obama-meet-on-fiscal-cliff/"><span style="font-size: small;">Boehner and Obama meet on "fiscal cliff" </span></a></h2>
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57558119-10391739/boehner-and-obama-meet-on-fiscal-cliff/"><div class="dek">
<b>The two main negotiators met at the White House Sunday - their first face-to-face meeting in weeks</b></div>
</a> <div class="datestamp">
<span class="datePublished">December 09, 5:04 PM</span> </div>
</li>
<li><h2>
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57558104/bowles-sees-progress-on-fiscal-cliff/"><span style="font-size: small;">Bowles sees "progress" on "fiscal cliff"</span></a></h2>
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57558104/bowles-sees-progress-on-fiscal-cliff/"><div class="dek">
<b>Meanwhile, deficit guru Erskine Bowles' cohort Alan Simpson believes lawmakers are playing politics with the "cliff"</b></div>
</a> <div class="datestamp">
<span class="datePublished">December 09, 12:39 PM</span></div>
</li>
<li><h2>
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57558034-10391739/little-change-in-fiscal-cliff-talks-or-talking-points/"><span style="font-size: small;">Little change in "cliff" talks, or talking points</span></a></h2>
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57558034-10391739/little-change-in-fiscal-cliff-talks-or-talking-points/"><div class="dek">
<b>In their weekly addresses, President Obama and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., don't budge from their positions regarding taxes on the wealthy</b></div>
</a> <div class="datestamp">
<span class="datePublished">December 08, 6:00 AM</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
These are only two days of headlines, but CBS has done a very good job of compiling the information leading up to the fiscal cliff at their <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-250_162-2041/the-fiscal-cliff/" target="_blank">website</a>. </div>
<div id="inlineSocialBarTopPlaceholder">
</div>
<!-- has video: true --><!-- has Images: true --><!-- has feature: true --><!-- is show: false --><!-- module channel: 3445 -->
<div class="storyText">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3784561315774230886.post-68021563017748317382012-12-07T17:33:00.000-06:002012-12-07T17:33:01.507-06:00Dick Armey's Departure from Freedom Works Turns Nasty<br />
<div id="content-header">
<b style="text-align: center;"><i>Koch Brothers better watch out! Will their underhanded tactics during the election catch up with them?</i></b><br />
<br />
Would have bet there was more to the Dick Armey leaving Freedom Works then what we were first told. Remember this is the same Dick Armey when during the Clinton Monicagate <a href="http://www.snopes.com/quotes/armey.asp" target="_blank">he had this to say</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As the Los Angeles Times described the scene:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
... the jam-packed room burst into raucous laughter as one reporter
prefaced a question about the Lewinsky scandal by saying, "If you were in the
president's position ..." Armey didn't miss a beat. "If I were, I would be
looking up from a pool of blood and hearing my wife say, "How do I reload this
thing?""</blockquote>
</blockquote>
I will never forget his quote and realized that he was an honest person -- you don't find many in DC who will stand on principle. An example is how he took after James Dobson from Focus on the Family:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Armey also feuded with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family" title="Focus on the Family">Focus on the Family</a> leader <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson" title="James Dobson">James Dobson</a> in his later terms in office. Armey wrote, "As Majority Leader, I remember vividly a meeting with the House leadership where Dobson scolded us for having failed to 'deliver' for Christian conservatives, that we owed our majority to him, and that he had the power to take our jobs back. This offended me, and I told him so." Armey states that Focus on the Family targeted him politically after the incident, writing, "Focus on the Family deliberately perpetuates the lie that I am a consultant to the <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU" title="ACLU">ACLU</a>." Armey has also said that "Dobson and his gang of thieves are real nasty bullies."</blockquote>
Wish Armey had become Speaker as I thought he made an outstanding Majority Leader. When he took over as head of Freedom Works, it made no sense because Armey isn't the type of guy to take orders from the Koch Brothers. It finally got to him and the real truth came out. It is the secrecy of the origins of cash donations to the Freedom Works PAC which he knew nothing about. I would bet there is a lot more and if I were the Koch Brothers, I might be very concerned that he will spill everything he knows about the operation or actually report how secretive the Koch Brothers operation really is.<br />
<br />
Now you can say I have put on my tin foil hat. Did the Koch's hire Senator Jim DeMint who is not known as the most ethical Senator to use his clout to take on Armney for the Koch's. Jim DeMint is a liar as we saw when<a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/01/143761/tea-party-favorite-demint-accused.html" target="_blank"> he promised the Republican conference</a> he wouldn't primary incumbents but did just that e.g. Richard Lugar. If that is the case, I am buying tickets for that match and my money is on Dick Armey.<br />
<br />
Mother Jones with David Corn has done an excellent job this election cycle of digging for the facts and finding them. The election may be over but they are still digging. Very impressive organization that make sure they have the facts even when stirring the pot. I can just see the 'cat that swallowed the canary' look on David Corn he gets on TV as he reports on Armey's break with Freedom Works. Looking forward to seeing more details:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/dick-armey-i-left-freedomworks-partly-because-secrecy" target="_blank"><b>Dick Armey: "This Kind of Secrecy Is Why I Left" FreedomWorks</b></a><br />—By <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/authors/david-corn" rel="author">David Corn</a>| Fri Dec. 7, 2012 1:42 PM PST </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Sunlight Foundation, a group that pushes for more transparent politics and policymaking, on Friday <a href="http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/secret-money-fuels-freedomworks/">reported</a> that federal records show that two mystery companies in September donated over $12 million to the super PAC of FreedomWorks, the tea party-supporting organization that this week was rocked by the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/dick-armey-resigns-freedomworks-tea-party">abrupt resignation</a> of its chairman, Dick Armey, the former Republican House majority leader. These contributions accounted for more than half of the $23.2 million the group raised for the 2012 campaign, and they came from two shadowy Knoxville-Tennessee-based firms—Specialty Group, Inc., and Pike Development LLC—that publicly have no reason to exist other than apparently to make contributions and mask the true source of the money. Moreover, Armey tells <em>Mother Jones</em> that he knew nothing about the donations or the origins of the cash and that he quit FreedomWorks partly because of a lack of transparency. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
(snip)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>Mother Jones</em> then reached Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks (whom Armey has accused of misappropriating FreedomWorks resources for his own personal benefit), and asked if it was unusual for the chairman of an outfit to be in the dark about half of the group's funding. "Well, we have 81,000 individual donors," Kibbe replied. Indeed, but only two donations that account for over $12 million. Nothing curious about Armey not being in-the-know? "It's not unusual," Kibbe said. He continued: "I don't know about these [donations]. It's the first time I've heard." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
This seemed even more bizarre. Would Kibbe not know where half of the money for his group's super PAC came from? In fact, in September, Associated Press <a href="http://a%20shadowy%20tennessee%20company%20donated%20more%20than%20%245%20million%20to%20a%20prominent%20conservative%20super%20political%20action%20committee%20days%20after%20establishing%20itself.%20%20so%20who%27s%20behind%20one%20of%20the%20largest%20batches%20of%20election%20contributions%20this%20year/?%20There's%20a%20questionable%20trail.%20%20Campaign%20finance%20reports%20filed%20late%20Thursday%20show%20that%20the%20political%20committee,%20FreedomWorks%20for%20America,%20received%20seven%20donations%20totaling%20$5.28%20million%20from%20Knoxville-based%20Specialty%20Group%20Inc.%20The%20money,%20which%20accounted%20for%20about%2090%20percent%20of%20FreedomWorks%20for%20America's%20donations%20during%20the%20first%2015%20days%20of%20October,%20is%20helping%20pay%20for%20TV%20ads%20supporting%20conservative%20candidates%20for%20federal%20office.">reported</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
A shadowy Tennessee company donated more than $5 million to a prominent conservative super political action committee days after establishing itself…Campaign finance reports filed late Thursday show that the political committee, FreedomWorks for America, received seven donations totaling $5.28 million from Knoxville-based Specialty Group Inc. The money, which accounted for about 90 percent of FreedomWorks for America's donations during the first 15 days of October, is helping pay for TV ads supporting conservative candidates for federal office.</blockquote>
That money helped underwrite <a href="http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/freedomworks-makes-rare-TV-buy-against-Duckworth/">a massive $1.5 million television ad buy</a> targeting Democrat Tammy Duckworth who was challenging Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), a leading tea partier. At the time, a FreedomWorks spokesman declined to comment, and the registered owner of Specialty Group, William S. Rose, stayed mum, as well. (The money didn't help; Duckworth won the race.) </blockquote>
<blockquote>
When asked how he could not be aware of these hefty donations, Kibbe requested that he be sent the Sunlight Foundation article and said, "I'm not supposed to comment before reading."<br />Armey's bad-blood departure from FreedomWorks—which yielded him an <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEA_PARTY_ARMEY_RESIGNATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-04-11-43-11">$8 million payou</a>t—has created a <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/dick-armey-freedomworks-president-clashed-over-book-deal-84599.html">bigtime dustup</a>. And the group's big secrets may well be in jeopardy.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Source: David Corn at <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/dick-armey-i-left-freedomworks-partly-because-secrecy" target="_blank">Mother Jones </a> </blockquote>
</div>
<!-- /#content-header --> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0