Enough.

Watching this brought me to tears this morning.  Now is the time to stop the madness of our country's gun culture.  Now is the time to let the large majority of the American public speak and have their will be done.  Only a small minority of radical gun advocates have been the ones that have controlled the debate for almost 30 years.  These radicals exist to support the gun manufacturers.  It's nothing less than the sanction of mass murder and mayhem.

Enough.

Let's start with the five types of gun control that a majority of NRA members and the general public support:

1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.

2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.

3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.

4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.

5.Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.

 After that, lets call out all those who say:

– “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.” [Larry Pratt, Gun Owners Of America]
– “Had Connecticut not had the no guns in school laws….Had the principal, the maintenance man, a teacher, been allowed to keep a gun in their office, maybe just maybe, this would have come out differently.” [Bob Irwin, The Gun Store]
– “I only wish the kindergarten teacher and principal in Connecticut had been armed.” [Dr. Keith Ablow, Fox News]
– “[S]o looking at this tragedy that happened with K-12, we might have to have an armed employee at the schools, that’s a measure, that’s a measure.” [Michele Fiore, Nevada Assemblywoman]
– “Look at what has happened, all these attacks this year have occurred where guns are banned.” [John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime]
– “Well, I believe those of us who are licensed to carry, are responsible people, shouldn’t be prohibited from carrying in schools or other places.” [Steve Dulan, Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners]

 Let's call them out as advocates of violence, mass murder, and vigilantism.  There is no instance in the past 30 years where even one of the scenarios listed above has made a difference.  Of the 62 documented mass shootings since 1982, not one has been stopped by an armed civilian.

Instead, lets support these folks who are finally speaking out on the national stage against the carnage of gun violence:

1. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): “If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our society, I don’t know when is. How many more Columbines and Newtowns must we live through? I am challenging President Obama, the Congress, and the American public to act on our outrage and, finally, do something about this.” 2. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY): “We cannot tolerate mass shootings as a mere inconvenience or a normal part of our everyday lives. Easy availability of the deadliest weapons to the most dangerous people has cost countless lives and caused immeasurable suffering, never more so than today. Our expressions of sympathy must be matched with concrete actions to stop gun violence.”
3. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA): “As a nation, we are again confronted with an act of terrifying mass gun violence. While the coming days should be reserved for grieving, as a legislative body, and as a people, we must consider what can be done to improve our laws to prevent the continuation of this horrific trend.”
4. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): “Tragedy in CT school. Unspeakable carnage. Every parent’s nightmare. Pray for the families. Congress must act now.”
5. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): “Americans are sick and tired of these attacks on our children and neighbors and they are sick and tired of nothing being done in Washington to stop the bloodshed. If we do not take action to address gun violence, shooting tragedies like this will continue. As President Obama said, we must act now ‘regardless of the politics.’”
6. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): “This touches us all so deeply, and it is long past time that we enacted sensible gun laws and school safety legislation.”

• Mark Kelly, husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) — herself a shooting survivor — and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) joined in these calls aggressive action on gun control legislation.
• Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (D) and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), co-chairs of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, also demanded immediate action. Among their proposals are requiring background checks for all gun purchases and increased enforcement of existing gun laws. Others have also proposed re-regulating military-style assault rifles.
• And, conservative columnist David Frum noted, “A permissive gun regime is not the only reason that the United States suffers so many atrocities like the one in Connecticut. An inadequate mental health system is surely at least as important a part of the answer.”

If any concerned responsible gun owner questions your motivation, simply ask them this question, "What will you do to stop the mass murder of children?"

Enough.

Right To Work - The Other Side of the Story

I got an email from my representative in Congress yesterday.  I've quoted the main points in order to offer an opposing point of view.  The full letter can be read here.

This means individual employees can join unions voluntarily, but unions cannot force membership or force the payment of dues across entire worksites.

ALL union membership is and has been voluntary.  The freedom to join or not join is enshrined in federal law. This is actually a victory for management against the freedom and benefits for workers. Indiana and Michigan are the first states in 22 years to move to "right to work" for less.  Most of the 24 states that currently have this regressive policy in place have not seen any improvement in their employment, have seen worker incomes lowered, and benefits decreased.  The corporate profits, however, have soared.

Folks should have the freedom to decide whether or not they will join a union. This freedom creates healthier unions that are constantly seeking to provide better services to members and prospective members. Eliminating this freedom limits the individual freedom of workers, results in fewer jobs, and makes our nation less competitive versus our foreign competitors.

...full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time. 

Most employers do not tell their employees this important bit of information. What can be required are union fees to offset the cost of the the union's bargaining on behalf of both union and non-union employees. Yet there are regulations in place for workers to challenge these fees if they feel it is necessary.

It is silly to call this an "individual freedom" issue.  It's much more about power.  Management doesn't need collective bargaining.  It holds a powerful hand by definition. Workers can only negotiate via collective action.  The real freedom issue here is the right to work for a living wage, proper working conditions, and health benefits that encourage and strengthen the work force.  

As our country struggles to find ways to stay competitive, create more jobs and grow our national economy, states must be looking for commonsense ways to ensure their prosperity. A recent study indicates that there is faster growth in employment and income in states with right to work laws in place.

Indeed, Mr. Goodlatte is talking about global competition.  No longer is America an exceptional nation with regards to the standard of living of its working class.  Competition is simply code for lower wages, fewer benefits and lowering the quality of life for what is left of America's middle class.

Many more studies have found that wages and benefits are lower for both union workers AND non-union workers in RTW  states. These studies actually measure the effects of RTW policies implemented in the laborotories of the states.  There is one study published by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy that suggests an economic benefit from RTW as should be expected from this market-based, conservative think tank seeking to justify its emphasis on corporate power and conservative ideology.

I am also a strong supporter of the National Right to Work Act, which preserves and protects the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. This legislation is simple and reasonable. The bill deletes provisions in federal law that authorizes contracts forcing workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

This is a solution in search of a problem. Workers currently freedom to choose their level of union participation. This is federal law.  The NRWA doesn't have anything to do with workers rights join a union or not, pay fees, or dues, or choose in anyway to participate in union activities.  This legislation simply seeks to consolidate the power of management to impose wages, benefits, and workplace conditions to maximize it's competitiveness and profitability. 

... our real competitors are Japan, Mexico, China, and Europe--not Ohio, New York, and California. So by making our nation more competitive as a whole, we also help Virginia’s workers and businesses.

Check the working conditions and wages in these countries.  You will find that the lifestyle of the working class advocated here is quite a bit different than anything associated with the American Dream.  Perhaps it is only the "makers" that are entitled to the American way of life?  Are Real Americans simply the Rich Americans?

By passing right to work legislation in statehouses or in Congress we can restore the freedom of America's workers to choose the form of workplace representation that best suits their needs or to choose not to participate. Most importantly, we help improve the standard of living of all American workers, support job creation and help keep the jobs we already have right here in the United States. These are the kind of pro-growth, pro-jobs policies we need to help fuel our economic recovery.

This couldn't be a clearer statement of pro-management, anti-worker policy. Freedom to work for less?  Power to the "makers?" Creation of a new lower class of workers who are hungrier, sicker, and poorer in order to compete with other countries?  I believe that the economic recovery referred to here is simply a continuation of the powerful push towards Plutocratic Autocracy, fueled by they huge corporate windfall enjoyed by the financial elites during the past recession.  Workers and citizens are not represented here.

Mr. Goodlatte, who do you serve?

More work to do....

DNRonline : They (Liberal Media) Never Let Up

It's always interesting to read the response from the loyal opposition after an election has been lost. I contrast Mr. Romney, a moderate Republican, and the Editor a "scary" radical Republican.  The tone and style contrast is, to me, the biggest takeaway from this election.  The mandate is for moderation.  The electorate rebuked radicalism. Mr. Romney's success in fighting back to within a whisker of being elected was BECAUSE he turned to the center and away from his radical base.  My favorite pundit comment from last night came after Mr. Romney's concession speech and was something like, "If THAT Mitt Romney had been allowed to run for President, he would have won."

Mr. Editor, liberalism is not a movement, it is the acceptance and recognition of widely divergent points of view.  You sir, are a member of the liberal media. You simply represent a point of view within that liberal media that is racist, bigoted, and regressive.  Your views are far to the right of anything that sounds like conservatism or moderation.  Radicalism is 'scary.'  Radicals don't compromise.  Radicals believe that they are oppressed. Radicals are in the minority and can't understand why they don't get the respect that they see other minorities achieve.  The tone of your response to this election confirms all of the above.

In a city that has a remarkably different viewpoint, your regressive and radical opinionating is less and less reflective of a city and country that is leaving you behind. Come to the center.  Become relevant.  Our country needs moderation and true conservative thinkers now. 

More work to do...

DNRonline : They Never Let Up

Mr. Romney will lead us Back to the Future : UPDATED

I had an interesting conversation with a friend concerning the election tomorrow, specifically the Presidential election. The blockquotes are my friend and the replies follow. 

"Those of us who depend on our investments for our retirement would like to see the economy doing a little better and I think Gov. Romney can get us moving in the right direction. That is just one of many things I belive that he will do for our country. He certainly has a lot more experience for being a president and has proven himself than the current president had when he took office."

And yet... no person on earth ever enters the White House with any experience at being President of the United States. I would think that a Harvard educated, constitutional law professor with a background in public service just might be able to figure it out. (and a Harvard educated, well-bred venture capitalist and holder of a law degree might be able to figure it out too...)

And yet.... corporate profits are at the highest level in decades, the stock market is back to where it was before the meltdown, the corporate and private tax burden is the lowest in 60 years, all the jobs that were lost at the end of the last administration's term have been added back, millions of jobs were saved in the auto industry, education reforms put in place... and this was our President!  All of these things sound more like moderate Republican accomplishments and I haven't mentioned the Republican health care reform first proposed in 1992 as a response to President Clinton's plan that was finally passed and is just now being implemented.

My biggest fear is not Mr. Romney, it is the folks from Bush administration he has installed in finance, foreign policy and national security positions.  They are currently only advisors, but indicate the direction that a Romney administration might turn. Here we go back to the future.  Tax Cuts, ballooning federal spending, expansion of Defense spending, and a belligerent foreign policy that might lead to yet another unnecessary war. Goodbye social safety net, goodbye public service, goodbye unions... goodby living wages, goodbye gender equality Hello to some very, very lucky corporate CEO's who will stand to profit HUGELY when all of these functions are privatized and profit-ized. 

Mr. Romney is a moderate Republican locked in a policy jail with the Right Wing of the party that will lead him ever rightward towards a domestic policy that will look a lot like Austerity.  It will lead him towards that aggressive foreign policy that is dangerous for the world and for us both in terms of national security and financially.  It will lock him into a strong support position to corporate interests over the interests of citizenry.  It's 'trickle down' on steroids.

The conversation continues after the jump:

Andy Schmookler's Vision for America

This is the transcript of Andy's recent speech given over several locations in the final week of the campaign. It needs to be seen and shared widely. The contrasting visions of Mr. Schmookler and Mr. Goodlatte could not be more stark. I urge everyone to read every word and share it with everyone you know as widely as possible. Mr. Schmookler would be a positive addition to the House of Representatives. Mr. Goodlatte is part of the reason for it's 9% national approval rating. Read on:

 “I See an America” Andy Schmookler’s Positive Vision for Our Country

I've spoken often against the threat that I see to all that has made America great. And I've addressed many nuts-and-bolts issues that affect our district, including jobs and the budget and healthcare.

Now I want to speak to the vision of the America I am fighting for.

In some ways, it’s the America I grew up in.

I am fighting for an America where the government plays a role in creating a vibrant middle class — as it did after World War II by providing educational opportunities for returning war veterans and by creating a more level playing field for workers and the great corporations that employ them.

I am also fighting for an America where our political leaders come together on the basis of the values that we share, liberals and conservatives alike, to achieve our common purposes.

Part of America’s greatness has always been that we have been guided by a vision of our best possibilities.

More than 70 years ago, a great American president — Franklin D. Roosevelt — articulated such a vision.

“I see an America…” FDR called out in a speech, and then he gave an eloquent recital of the qualities of the America he was working to foster.

“I see an America,” FDR said, “where no businessman can be stifled by the harsh hand of monopoly…”

I join him in supporting a market economy where there is fair competition because the government plays a role in keeping the giant corporations from abusing their power.

"I see an America where factory workers are not discarded after they reach their prime, where there is no endless chain of poverty from generation to generation…"

I share FDR’s concern that average Americans be treated fairly. And I share his determination that America be a land of opportunity, raising up a people with initiative and the ability to better their condition.

“I see an America of great cultural and educational opportunity for all its people.”

I support his vision that there is no more important investment for a healthy society than in the development of the potential of its people. And I share his sense that man does not live by bread alone.

“I see an America,” FDR continued, “whose rivers and valleys and lakes — hills and streams and plains — … are protected as the rightful heritage of all the people.”

I share his understanding that our natural environment is not merely a means to the end of anyone’s private enrichment but belongs to us all and warrants our protection.
 Now let me share some of my own vision.

I see an America where our citizens are secure about getting the healthcare they need without fear of being bankrupted.

I see an America where people care as much about doing what’s right as about getting what they want, where corporations care about the country and not just their own profits, and where the media care about their effect on people’s minds and souls, and not just their ratings.

I see an America that honors scientifically established fact, and where neither corporate powers nor political parties try to deceive people about truths important to their future.

I see an America where the young are educated to be productive, but also to become fully developed, whole human beings.

I see an America that leads world civilization toward a time when the genocide in Rwanda and the rape-camps in Bosnia cannot happen, because the world is organized to stop such horrors. And an America that leads toward a time when humankind lives in harmony with our planet, and the health of life on earth is growing stronger rather than deteriorating.

And perhaps the starting place for a better America lies here: In the America I grew up in, we had a sense that we were on a path of continual improvement, and a determination to strive along that path. We lost that. I want it back.

We should always be asking ourselves, "What do we want America to be like generations hence?" and be working always to find ways to make it so. If one approach doesn’t work, we Americans should try another.

Without a vision to strive toward, we cannot even maintain the status quo. As it says in the Bible (Proverbs 29:18), “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

 To join Andy's campaign: Check out the website at www.AndySchmooklerForCongress.com

Death By a Single GOP Cut? | Mother Jones

Death By a Single GOP Cut? | Mother Jones or is it death by a thousand small cuts? It's very evident that the Republican majority in the House is against the American Dream for anyone who can't afford it. The list of government programs that are being cut only includes those that have a direct impact on the quality of life of a lot of Americans. It doesn't seem to matter to them that none of these cuts represents fiscal sanity, or that even when all of the small cuts are totaled up they won't even make a dent in the the nation's debt. It's pretty safe to assume that this radical gang of partisans is simply on an ideological war party. They've got their war paint on and are looking for scalps.

Somebody save Big Bird!!

"You didn't build that!" ~God

Follow Brent Holl

What Does Lower Spending and Deficit Reduction Look Like?

Bob Cesca: Repeat After Me: Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years

Ok this is truly stunning.  That the GOP can still roundly denounce the spending level of Mr. Obama and think that they could do better simply shows that they are only playing for political blood... Mr. Obama's.

Math challenged Republicans are looking very foolish to me... Is this true for anyone else?

You didn't build that! ~God Follow Brent Holl

Mr. Obama, You've Got This

The second presidential debate is approaching.  Mr. Obama says he's relishing the opportunity to redeem himself for his lackluster showing at the first debate.  Perhaps the energy of Mr. Romney's fast-talking, truthy, sales pitch to America will be a wake-up call. It certainly should call the president's attention to the political race that will determine the rest of his career as a politician.

Prepare yourself Mr. President.  Mr. Romney was prepared.  He had memorized talking points and statistics that sounded fantastic as he chattered away, all the while looking you in the eye and daring you to disagree or call out his inaccuracies.  Engage! He's making the sale.  He's memorized his pitch.  His handlers have decided that most anything he says will be believed and repeated by the supplicant media.  In the first debate he won because as Mr. Reagan found out, "a lie travels 'round the world before the truth puts its boots on."

So Mr. Obama you need to get out in front of this.  Be ready to make the truth sound like a lie.  Keep it short and succinct.  Pithy phrases, simple ideas. Color in the empty statements of Mr. Romney with stories, facts and interesting information.  You can stay cool and calm, just get the jump this time.  Its a fast break.  You are the point guard. Look for the opening then make the assist, score the ball, get back on defense and get ready for your next opportunity.  It's winnin' time. Follow Brent Holl

No News? That's Bad News....

The four biggest convention stories you won’t hear about - Salon.com

...the conventions definitively prove that America’s media crisis has nothing to do with resources and everything to do with journalism — or lack thereof. As evidenced by the army of media folk invading Tampa and Charlotte, news organizations have plenty of money — they are just choosing to cover non-news events like scripted political conventions, and to ignore real news throughout America.

It’s a blockbuster revelation — one that, not surprisingly, will go unreported.

Mr. Sirota is discussing the supposed crisis in journalism that is causing real news to go unreported.  Supposedly, the media is evolving away from everyday print newspapers, beat reporters, on the ground reporting, and truly independent reporting because of lack of resources.  In truth, it is simply the economic rule of our times... It's got to be profitable.  Since it's not really profitable to cover real news like what Mr. Sirota is talking about news goes unreported and media outlets become shills for their corporate sponsors.

This is not surprising... it's how the world of unregulated wealth creation works.  The only news is how much profit have you made for me lately.

"You didn't build that!" - God Follow Brent Holl

Charlie Reese's Last Column

This was sent along by a good friend who knows my interest in politics. I share it with you.... Read on.

This is Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel... He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

545 vs. 300,000,000 People - By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

 You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.


You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House now? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

 If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

 Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper. Follow Brent Holl

Inside Out. Rubber and Glue?

Obama’s women problem - The Washington Post

It's always interesting to hear the inside-out view.  The left wing media is full of articles and op-eds pointing out the legislation both passed and simply introduced concerning abortion, contraception, women's health care issues, and equal pay for equal work by Republican lawmakers in the states and in Congress. Mr. Thiessen has found a poll that seems to indicate that women are in approval of these GOP policies.  He has taken his cue from the Romney campaign playing "I'm rubber and you are glue" with women's issues and has boldly accused Mr. Obama of being the real opponent of women and women's issues.

Wow.

Evidently, the lock-step opposition to women's health issues, equality in the workplace, women's ability to make important choices of their own is, in Mr. Thiessen's view, what pleases women!  It's interesting that the number he uses is Mr. Obama's overall approval rating, emphasis on overall.  Mr. Thiessen should look at some policy specific numbers and get back to us.  He should, as Senator Murkwoski elegantly said earlier this week when she advised her GOP colleagues to "go home and talk to your wife and your daughters." 

Mr. Obama is following all of this with the security of knowing that, on his side of the women's rights issues, the support from women is clear and strong.  He hasn't had to do much to encourage this support except pass hugely important legislation on their behalf. Republicans, who have been fighting the culture wars for 40 years simply can not pivot, as Mr. Theissen would like us to think, and say that all of this battle has won the support of women! They have the difficult job of convincing women that it is the GOP that is protecting their interests.  Mr. Theissen is doing his best.... all the best to him.

This kind of inside out argument is what Mr. Theissen does.  He's good at it. His defense of torture was famously stubborn and provided a lot of much needed cover to his right wing colleagues.  In this he's providing cover for all of the GOP policy makers who want to continue their cultural warfare concerning the role of women in our society.

Be warned....

More work to do... Follow Brent Holl

Ignoramus Politics: WAR is a band!

The Maddow Blog - Mitch McConnell, call your caucus

Someone needs to tell the GOP that WAR is a band!  No, actually it's a metaphor that it tossed around in the political world like a beach ball at a WAR concert. Players in the game of Ignoramus Politics [Mr. McConnell in this case]  love to either deny or extol one type of war or another.  In this case the use of the 'war' metaphor is the core of today's episode of Ignoramus Politics.

Here's the honorable Senator holding forth on the false notion that the GOP is somehow waging a 'war' on women's rights, an accusation coming from the opposition with more than a little enthusiasm. 

"There is no issue. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine I think would be the first to say -- and Lisa Murkowski from Alaska -- 'we don't see any evidence of this.'"

Then we have the honorable senator Murkowski from Alaska:

"It makes no sense to make this attack on women," she said. "If you don't feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters."

Now the honorable  Senator Hutchinson from Texas:

"We cannot afford to lose the Medicaid funding for low-income women to have health care services. We can't keep turning back federal funds that every state gets and then try to find money in our budget that is already being cut in key areas like education.

"I do think that the governor needs to sit down with the federal government and work it out so that we can have our share -- our fair share, not more, but our share -- of money for Medicaid to help low-income women have their healthcare services.

"I think Planned Parenthood does mammograms, they do so much of the health care, the preventative health care, and if they're doing that, then we need to provide those services, absolutely."

And the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe:

"You know, it really is surprising, because I feel like it's a retro-debate that took place in the 1950s," Snowe said. "It's sort of back to the future, isn't it? And it is surprising in the 21st century we would be revisiting this issue. And Sandra Fluke should have been commended, not condemned, for her courage in expressing her own views and beliefs before members of Congress." 

Mr. McConnell is playing Ignoramus Politics because he truly expects his constituents to believe him with regards to the assult on women's rights.  He's a smart guy, he just thinks he's talking to folks who aren't paying attention and will believe him. Folks, it's either that or Mr. McConnell and a whole bunch of his wingnut brethren truly feel that women belong at home and subservient to their men.

More work to do..... Follow Brent Holl

Ignoramus Politics: The Path to Poverty

1,070 Days

If you live any where near the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia, there's a good chance that you received this email from Rep. Bob Goodlatte, our congressman.  He has wholeheartedly endorsed the Ryan Budget as a "path to prosperity." He also famously supports and has co-sponsored the Balanced Budget Amendment. His arguments are those of the conservative literati who drive the ship of movement conservatism.  He has not represented the best interests of his constituents since he swallowed his promise to only serve 2 terms several terms back.  He's found that life in Congress as a willing lackey in the Republican political machine is quite lucrative.

In this email he touts the recently passed budget plan as a document that forces Congress to make tough decisions about what the government can or can't afford.  He calls on the wisdom of "Valley families" who are faced with tough financial decisions each and every day.

Families in the Sixth District and all across our nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford. Yet, far too often this fundamental principle is forgotten in Congress. If Americans must exercise restraint with their own funds, then the government must be required to do so as well.

Ok.  Who can't agree with that?  It's a simple statement, makes sense and is more than likely a very popular position in our district.  Heck.... I agree with this!

This email message is a brilliant example of "ignoramus" politics.  Mr. Goodlatte knows that a message like this resonates well with his supporters.  It is seductive in language and hits the Valley folk with a very friendly resonance.  Mr. Goodlatte goes on to say in the email that the Ryan Budget deals with the deficit, cuts the size of government, repeals Obamacare, and leads to economic growth.  Brilliant....

Did I tell you that the "ignoramus" is us?  Is there any talk of where all that savings is coming from? Is there any discussion of the "choices" we were supposed to be making as a constituency?  Mr. Goodlatte has simply announced the budget decisions of the Republican elite as the economic policy that is in our best interests.  Anyone know what's been decided?

The Ryan Budget is a radical document.  The term conservative can never be rightfully used to describe it. For starters:

So the proposal is exactly as President Obama described it: a proposal to deny health care (and many other essentials) to millions of Americans, while lavishing tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy — all while failing to reduce the budget deficit, unless you believe in Mr. Ryan’s secret revenue sauce.

Republicans have chosen to move 14 million Americans off health care, mostly the ill,  young people and children by moving Medicaid to the states and providing block grants as financial support. If the money runs out? There's nowhere to run.  By repealing Obamacare, they have chosen to support the incredible rising costs of health care for the rest of us by handing the responsibility for our nation's health and well-being to the private health care industry.  Our health is now dependent on our profitability to the insurance industry. If your family's health doesn't match your family budget? That's not a pleasant thought.  Let's not forget the lost deficit reduction gone with the repeal of Obamacare.  The size of government decreases, but OUR family financial burden increases. That's the Republican choice.

The Republicans have decided that Medicare "as we know it" needs to be fixed by handing over that responsibility to the private insurance industries too.  They will give us all a fixed voucher which, again, may help defray the cost of the most expensive health care ALL of us will need, but if it's not enough?.... That's yet another unpleasant thought. Again the size of government decreases, but the financial burden on OUR families increases. That's the Republican choice.

Republicans have chosen to boost the military budget over the objections of the military brass.  The mild-mannered Mr. Ryan immediately discounted their objections famously saying, "We  don't think the Generals are giving us their true advice." He later walked this back, but didn't back off from his budget proposal. 

Republicans have chosen to place a new consumption tax that will hit the lower and middle classes much harder than the affluent upper class.  How does $900 per year sound?  At the same time, Republicans have chosen to give themselves an historic tax cut.  In addition to the tax cuts enacted by President Bush, they will 'reform' the tax code to the tune of a 1.7 million dollar per household windfall for the .1% to $238, 000 per household for the 1%.  This is to be paid for by closing as yet undefined tax loopholes and budgetary assumptions, the so-called "secret revenue sauce" mentioned by Mr. Krugman and others. Remember Mr. Goodlatte's boast that the Ryan Plan makes tough decisions?  We're still waiting.

We the people are the "ignoramus." We fall for the common sense, non-specific, smooth sounding platitude, Mr. Goodlatte's specialty. We would all be better served by observing THIS platitude: "You can't cut spending without cutting spending!"

But Ryan wants to have it both ways: He wants to get the credit for cutting spending, but he doesn’t want to have to propose specific spending cuts. Oh, and he doesn’t want anyone to extrapolate what those cuts would be, either.

Of course, even Ryan’s supporters should see the problem here. If these cuts are too unpopular to detail, then they’re going to be too unpopular to pass. If the only way to defend Ryan’s budget is to beat back any attempts to make it specific, then it’s an empty, useless document.

Mr. Goodlatte, take note. Follow Brent Holl

GOP on the Wrong Side of the LGBT issue... again

Democrats Ask Boehner To Back Off His 'Direct Assault' On Gay Veterans | ThinkProgress

The takeaway:

This intervention once again puts the House of Representatives on the wrong side of the future – supporting discrimination, unfairness, and the denial of basic equality to all Americans. - Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Whip Steny Hoyer (MD)

The House of Representatives is showing once again that they are locked in an ideological iron box.  It is locked from the inside and they refuse to open it. In that box is their certitude that 'the gay' is an abomination and must be opposed or eliminated at any cost. This flies in the face of the American constitution, Christian morality, equality before the law and just plain fairness.  The profound and stubborn ignorance on the part of these ideologically bound autocrats would lead America into a 'New Medieval' age of persecutions, witch hunts, and ignorance. Enough.

More work to do. Follow Brent Holl

The Legalized Mayhem of 'Stand Your Ground'

Repeal the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law - The Washington Post

These laws encourage hotheads to go into potential confrontations with loaded firearms. They give permission to shoot first and ask questions later. This may be good for gun manufacturers, funeral homes and the NRA, but it’s tragic for justice in America. - Gene Robinson

How far right will we allow America to go?  Righteous ideological purity demanded this law. The myopic focus on the right to own and use a gun, regardless of the consequences to law-abiding citizens is fast bringing our society to true lawlessness.

Arming gangs and hotheads and giving them permission to shoot each other?  Nobody thinks that's a great policy of governance, yet that is one effect of this law.  Declaring a bag of skittels and a can of ice tea a deadly threat? Nobody thinks that's a particularly smart idea, yet that is another effect of the law. Encouraging hotheads at frat parties and playgrounds to settle their arguments with deadly force?  Anyone who believes in safe communities, family values, or a high quality of life in the wealthiest most privileged nation on earth thinks that's a pretty bad idea, yet the law gives license to this aberrant activity as well.

Making policy according to fundamentalist, dogmatic, ideological purity is  folly. The defenders of the law are sincere, sober and thoughtful as they make their arguments.  They will say that the police should have done a more careful and thorough investigation into the incident to determine if the law did indeed apply.  Consider this.  The violent act is allowed to occur, followed by careful and thoughtful consideration with regards to its legality.  Think about that for a bit.  Is "Shoot first, ask questions later" good governance?  'Stand your ground' is legalized mayhem.  That's not the moral fiber of a great nation, it's guerrilla warfare.

More work to do.

Enough of Rick Santorum’s sermons - The Washington Post

Enough of Rick Santorum’s sermons - The Washington Post

I seldom agree with Mr. Cohen. He's firmly established as a Washington courtier, and inside-the-beltway cruiser and opportunist. For him to speak so truthfully and openly about a national party's candidate for President of the United States of America is refreshing. Casting aside all pretentions at currying favor with anyone, he writes today:

Oddly, the assurances that Kennedy offered that day are ones that I would like to hear from Santorum. He, too, is a Catholic, although not of the Kennedy variety. Santorum is severe and unamusing about his faith, and that is his prerogative. But he has shoved his beliefs in our faces, leaving no doubt that his presidency would be informed by his extremely conservative Catholicism. Santorum’s views are too conservative even for most Catholics.

This is a perilous and divisive approach. We have all of world history to warn us about what happens when religion takes too prominent a role. The public square gets used for beheadings and the like. While that is not likely to happen now — zoning rules and such forbid it — we do know that layering religion over politics is dangerous. Santorum cannot impose — and should not argue — that his political beliefs come from God. That closes all debate and often infuriates those who differ.

It's not often that Mr. Cohen writes so plainly.  Is this simply an indication of desperation from the Washington faux royalty that Mr. Santorum has gone on too long and it's time to send him back to K Street?  Piling on is beginning.  The problem of the willing peasants who support Mr. Santorum is proving difficult to deal with.  Those inside the beltway who are so caught up in the politics of power that they are getting their heads handed to them by a group of folks who are just to stubborn to listen and only too willing to follow Mr. Santorum to the slaughter....

Mr. Cohen rails at the peasants for all their "quaint" beliefs and excoriates Mr. Santorum for getting so much, so  wrong.

But for nutty ideas, Santorum is a one-man band. His intellectually abhorrent defense of what might be called blue-collar culture — no education past high school — is a prescription for failure. What he calls their “desires and dreams” is a sucker’s game: Welcome to an economy that can provide few, if any, jobs for the minimally educated. And his jibe at Obama for wanting to do something about it is not politics as usual — it’s just plain irresponsible.

Will the Washington insiders get their way? Will Mr. Romney prevail? Maybe Mr. Santorum really is the candidate that today's Republican Party really wants and needs. What will Mr. Santorum say to Mr. Obama? Indeed, what can he say?

More work to do.....

DNRonline : We Can Limit Abortions But Not Guns?

DNRonline : We Can Limit Abortions But Not Guns?

So government is allowed to probe a woman's body without her consent or her doctor's, but is not allowed to find out who is buying a lethal weapon. Whose rights are being protected and whose are not?

The Commonwealth of Virginia is suing the federal government because it's citizens should not be mandated to purchase health care coverage, but the same Commonwealth of Virginia is mandating the abuse of the privacy of women? Again, whose rights are being protected and whose rights are being denied?

The same Commonwealth of Virginia is mandating that there are first class citizens and their are second class citizens. Some are allowed to marry and some aren't, some are allowed to vote and some aren't, some are allowed to adopt and some aren't, yet anyone can buy a lethal weapon and carry it around hidden beneath their coat? Whose rights are being protected?

This same Commonwealth of Virginia builds prisons and incarcerates it's citizens at a cost that is astronomical in comparison to the cost of educating or re-training them to become constructive citizens. The Commonwealth of Virginia has charged its peace officers with probing the identity of anyone suspicious of being an illegal immigrant. Whose rights are being threatened?

Is the Commonwealth of Virginia becoming a country club where only the deserving, the wealthy, the white, the connected have the rights and privileges granted by the constitutions of Virgina and the United States of America? Whose rights are being protected?