You want your government small and non-intrusive? Well try this one on for size! Jan Brewer, the same Republican governor who tried to make racial profiling legal in her state of Arizona, just signed another racially motivated bill into law. This time, Mrs. Brewer is targeting minority women electing to get a legal abortion in her state.
According to House bill 2443, it will now be a crime for abortion providers to provide the service base on the race or sex of the fetus. The explanation for the law, as stated by its supporters, is that abortion facilities are disproportionately setting up their operations in minority neighborhoods, so in an effort to curb these clinics from setting up shops, Jan Brewer’s law will allow for doctors to be sued legally for performing the procedure.
The law allows the father of an aborted fetus – or, if the mother is a minor, the mother’s parents – to take legal action against the doctor or other health-care provider who performed the abortion. If convicted of the felony, physicians would face up to seven years in jail and the loss of their medical license.
The ruling would be totally ridiculed and frankly called racists if the law made the language more direct, like saying any physicians performing abortions for minorities can face up to seven years in jail if convicted, so the wisdom at play here, is to put these physicians on notice – having them second-guessing any decision to offer the service to those minorities women requesting it. A physician knowing they can end up in jail or fined if a case is brought against them, will reconsider performing this service to minorities.
Conservatives place great emphasis on their love for small government. Yet, not small enough that it won’t dictate what you can or cannot do with your own productive organs.
A new CNN poll reveals some shocking details – Americans are wising up to the Teaparty and what they really stand for. Imagine that? The poll shows that the unfavorable rating of the Teaparty have risen to 47%. That’s up from a year ago, when more Americans bought into their so-called “grassroots” foundation.
Since January 2010, when only 26% of Americans found the movement to be unfavorable, more revelations were made about where their funds were coming from. And with those revelations, more and more Americans began realizing that the Teaparty movement is a lobbying organization for the rich. People like the Koch brothers and Dick Armey have invested heavily into the Teaparty, and in return for their investment, the movement goes out to protest any policy measure that goes against their rich sponsors.
But although a majority of Americans view the Teaparty in an unfavorable way, they are not alone. The CNN poll also finds both the Democratic and Republican party with a high unfavorable reading. Democrat’s polls split almost down the middle, with 46% in favor and 48% expressing a negative view. Republicans are in the same boat. The American people voted 44% in favor of the GOP, and 48% against.
Republicans have long wished for the time when the poor and suffering would move out-of-the-way, and allow the millionaires, billionaires and Corporations to prosper. In their view, poor and middle class Americans are trying to take away all the programs the government has established to benefit the rich. Republicans call these “entitlement programs,” and the sooner they’re able to push and squeeze others off these programs, the sooner the rich can benefit.
No place is this more evident than in Florida, where a new Teaparty candidate, representing the Republican party, held a townhall meeting to address his supporters. Mr. Allan West, the House representative for Southeast Florida told the crowd that he would love to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and federal income tax, while retaining tax cuts for billionaires. West also wants to stop the extension of unemployment benefits to the middle class and refers to the government providing these benefits to middle class Americans as, “rewarding bad behavior.”
In reference to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, West thinks that leaving these services in tact will deplete our GDP by 2030 or 2040. His plans would be for the eventual dismantling of these services that again for the most part assist the poor people and middle class. Spokeswoman for DCCC Jennifer Crider said;
“Everyone agrees we need to cut spending, but Representative Allen West is making the wrong choice by forcing seniors to shoulder the burden and while not asking Big Oil companies making record profits to sacrifice even the smallest amount.”
Social Security is a program that mostly pays for itself. Over the last few years, however, the program has began to show signs that it will eventually fall short of its goals of comfortably providing for its beneficiaries, mainly because more people are entering into retirement and also because the labor force is reduced due to the economic downturn. Republicans, who have been trying to dismantle the program for decades, are now using the economy and the federal deficit as reasons to bring social security to its knees. Some Democrats, like Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, are determined to fight these efforts of the Republicans. In a recent interview, Mr. Reid said;
“I have said clearly and as many times as I can, leave Social Security alone. Social Security does not add a single penny, not a dime, a nickel, a dollar to the budget problems we have. Never has and for the next 30 years it won’t do that.
“So what I’ve said, if you want to look at something to take care of the out years, let’s do it at the right time. It is not in a crisis at this stage. Leave Social Security alone. We have a lot of other places we can look that are in crisis. Social Security is not. I repeat, for the next approximately 30 years people will draw 100% of their benefits.”
Mr. West’s thinking is common amongst Republican party members. Many Republican governors nationwide have begun breaking down the middle class in order to support their rich donors. Recent examples in Wisconsin, Detroit, and Florida are just some of the states where Republican governors are creating laws geared towards removing any form of assistance from the middle class worker, and transferring that assistance to the rich. Rick Scott of Florida recently proposed a bill that will cut school subsidies in his state by $1.3 billion, while at the same time, giving a tax cut of $1.6 billion to millionaires.
It is a transfer of wealth like we haven’t seen in quite a long time, and it started over 30 years ago when Ronald Regan introduced the idea of trickle down economics. The concept embraces the belief that giving to the rich will in turn allow them to provide jobs to the middle class, thus trickling down the wealth. But this idea failed in the Reagan years, causing the president to raise taxes in an effort to fight off a downward turn in the 1980 economy. And although it failed then, trickle down economics was embraced by conservatives over the past 30 years, and contributed heavily to the most recent recession that started in 2007/2008 under the Bush administration. According to reports from The Atlantic;
When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.
Unfortunately, here we are in 2011, and the trickle-down trend has continued. Republicans are now taking away from schools, education, cutting back on planned parenthood and public radio, in an effort to finance the bank accounts of the rich. Will the American people wake up from their slumber before it’s too late? Will we ever realize that the last 30+ years of trickle down economics did nothing for the middle class, and everything for th über rich? If we continue to go down this path we’ve been on for the past 30 years, why should we expect a different outcome?
America can once again be what the founding fathers intended it to be. The preamble to the constitution says it best;
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.
President Barack Obama
I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.
Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.
Last month, Gaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”
Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.
In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.
Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.
At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.
It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.
To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.
So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.
That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.
Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.
Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves.
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government.
Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.
Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.
That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.”
This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.
Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership.
My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.
But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
“Where are the jobs!?” was a question John Boehner asked to anyone who gave him the time of day. But then again, a campaign was on the way for the 2010 mid-term election, so asking this question at a time when over 15 million Americans were without work seemed like the thing to do. Boehner promised Americans that if he wins, job creation will be his number one priority, but since winning, the new House Speaker had more important things to take care of.
But the people are still waiting, and John Boehner – now almost 4 months into his leadership role – has to come up with a reason why he hasn’t stuck to his campaign promise. So what’s easier to do, than blame President Obama? Nothing… so that’s exactly what Boehner is now doing. On his website, Boehner had this to say;
“Any improvement in the jobs situation for our country is welcome news, but unemployment is still far above where the Obama Administration promised it would be when it forced our children to pay for the ‘stimulus’ fiasco, which accelerated a government spending binge that continues to block our nation’s path to prosperity.
“The path to prosperity and job creation lies in liberating our economy from the shackles of excessive government and unleashing the awesome potential of the American people. This has been and will continue to be the number-one priority for our new majority.”
If Mr. Boehner knows the pathway that leads to “to prosperity and job creation” then why doesn’t he take the initiative – hold America’s hand and lead us down the “path?”
Knowing the opportunistic nature of Boehner and his Republican allies, it is obvious he will claim that this pathway is the focus of his new majority. It is, however, impossible to understand how actions like defunding NPR – a move that House Republicans classified as an “emergency” – created jobs. And when the Boehner led House of Representatives focused like a laser on reducing $300 million in funding from Planned Parenthood, Americans are still asking, “Boehner, where are the jobs?!?!?!”
Americans are finally wising up though. It might be a little too late because the 2010 elections saw many Republican governors elected and a change in leadership in the House of Representative. But based on the actions – or lack thereof – of these Republicans, Americans have begun a real grass-root effort to make their voices heard. It is an effort that started in Wisconsin due to the over-reaching of another Republican governor whose intent is on silencing the Wisconsin workers and taking away their basic rights.
This grass-root initiative has spread nationwide, and the outlook for 2012 will be another message of change. This time though, it will be a change from the Corporate agenda Republicans are trying to push, to a focus on the middle class and really getting the American economy back on track.
But with another upcoming election, prepare for more baseless promises from the Republicans.
Despite a hold that a judge placed on Scott Walker’s union busting bill, Walker couldn’t wait for the legal process to unfold. On Friday, he published the bill on the state’s legislature website. According to the posting, the state’s law requires all bills to be published within 10 working days of its becoming law.
Also customary, according to Journal Sentinel;
The measure sparked protests at the Capitol and lawsuits by opponents because it would eliminate the ability of most public workers to bargain over anything but wages.
The restraining order was issued against Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette. But the bill was published by the reference bureau, which was not named in the restraining order.
Laws normally take effect a day after they are published, and a top GOP lawmaker said that meant it will become law Saturday. But nonpartisan legislative officials from two agencies, including the one who published the bill, disagreed.
“I think this is a ministerial act that forwards it to the secretary of state,” said Stephen Miller, director of the Legislative Reference Bureau. “I don’t think this act makes it become effective. My understanding is that the secretary of state has to publish it in the (official state) newspaper for it to become effective.”
Walker signed the bill March 11. Under state law, it should be published within 10 working days, which was Friday.
Tripping over himself in all manner of ways, is Republican hopeful for the 2012 presidential elections, Newt The Gingrich.
Mr. Gingrich exemplifies the Republicans response to President Obama in all his policy endeavors, and that is – look at the President’s position, and find a way to say and do the complete opposite.
So in keeping with that philosophy, the video below shows Newt Gingrich, criticizing President Obama for not acting on behalf of the Libyans being killed by Muammar Qadhafi. Asked what he would have done differently, Newt replied;
Exercise a no-fly zone this evening!… All we have to say is, slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and we are intervening.
Breaking News: President Obama and the International Community Exercised a No-Fly Zone over Libya.
Let’s now rejoin Newt, and see how he feels about this no-fly zone…
Mr. Gingrich, how do you feel about President Obama’s no-fly zone over Libya?
I would not have interveneD. I think there are a lot of other ways to affect Qadhafi.
Who locked the door to the White House? Well seems some are making a big deal about this. Here is a comment on the CBS website, after the viewer saw the video below;
OMG!!! You people are so pathetic. You are now reduced to making nasty comments about a White House door being locked!! How funny is that and especially when he just kept walking to an open door unlike George Bush who was so perplexed when he couldn’t open a door that he just stood and looked stupid. It is really sad that some people just have to find something, anything that they can whine about . You all really need to get lives or some counseling because your hatred for this President has gotten completely out of control and very unreasonable.
The Associated Press reported this week that Newt Gingrich – the morality standard of the Republican party who broke the news to his first wife that he was leaving her for another woman while she lay in a hospital bed recovering from an illness- funneled $125,000 dollars to an organization classified as a hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center.
The group called American Family Association – whose director Bryan Fischer, has demonstrated a documented bias against gays, lesbians and American Indians – used the funds to successfully oust three supreme court judges in Iowa in the 2010 elections. The supreme court judges had previously voted to legalize same-sex marriage in Iowa.
Reporting from Southern Poverty Law Center:
The story of Gingrich’s below-the-radar assistance to Iowa for Freedom started to dribble out on March 3, when The Los Angeles Times reported that Gingrich helped the organization get its start, offering strategic advice and arranging a $200,000 gift from an anonymous donor. The remaining $150,000, the AP reported, was raised in the form of donations to Renewing American Leadership (ReAL), a nonprofit group Gingrich founded that promotes his books, TV appearances, and films. It was ReAL Action, an arm of ReAL, that reportedly gave $125,000 of that $150,000 to AFA Action, the political wing of AFA. The final $25,000 was given by ReAL Action to Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition. Both AFA Action and Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition then supported Iowa for Freedom’s efforts, the AP said
Newt is just keeping in line with what seems to be the accepted behavior of today’s Republican party. More to come…
If Donald Trump ran his businesses the way he’s running his presidential campaign, he would be standing at Grand Central with a plastic cup begging for lunch money.
It seems the Trumpster has decided that pandering to the smallest, craziest segment of the American society is his pathway to the White House. Donald Trump has become the ultimate “Birther.”
He appeared on “The View” yesterday, demanding to see the President’s birth certificate.
I really believe there’s a birth certificate. Why wouldn’t he show his birth certificate.
Donald then went on to say that no one from Obama’s childhood remember him as a child. He also said that no one ever seen any pictures of the President as a child. Lies of course, but notice the easy way Donald was able to throw his talking point out there, hoping that no one will challenge it.
The highlight of the show was when Whoopi Golberg told Trump, “I think that’s the biggest pile of dog mess I’ve heard in ages!”. She was responding to his accusation that the President “is hiding something on his birth certificate.” Trump said;
I can’t rely on some news paper that they show. I want him to show his birth certificate. I want him to show his birth certificate!
Whoopi then asked the question, “it’s not cause he’s black?!?” Then showing how upset she was with the absurdity of the birthers, Whoopi continued;
Has any white president asked to be shown his birth certificate? When you become the president of the United States of America, you know that he’s an American.
It has always been the policy of Hawaii that they do not show the original birth certificate of any Hawaiian resident. They do, however, issue a certificate of live birth, which was done in President Obama’s case. This certificate can easily be considered as one of the most viewed document on the internet. His childhood pictures are also online and can be seen by anyone who knows how to use a keyboard. Evidently, this is too much technology for Donald Trump and the Birthers to grasp.
We”ve all heard the cries from Republicans and Teapartiers claiming that they “want their country back!” Have you ever wondered what exactly was meant by the phrase? Well, here’s one way they’re trying to take back their country… Republicans in Minnesota want their school system segregated, and they’re in the final phases of funding a bill that will do just that.
The language in the bill, appears in the “Repealer” section of the bill on page 53, and was discovered by Aaron Klemz at the Cucking Stool. The language itself is a bunch of jargon, you know… political language that the average person may overlook. It says;
(b) Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 124D.86, subdivisions 1, 1a, 2, 4, 5, and 6; and Minnesota Rules, parts 3535.0100; 3535.0110; 3535.0120; 3535.0130; 3535.0140; 3535.0150; 3535.0160; 3535.0170; and 3535.0180, are repealed.
Aaron Klemz looked into this and discovered the following:
It’s well-known that Republicans would target school integration aid, which is the subject of Section 124D.86. But the repeal of the regulations under part 3535 would literally remove “Minnesota’s commitment to the importance of integration in its public schools” from Minnesota regulations. Additionally, it would eliminate regulations requiring collection of data about segregation and requiring action to integrate racially segregated schools.
So what excuse are Republicans running with? Rep. Pat Garofalo (R-Farmington) who chairs the committee drafting the legislation told the City Pages;
“Desegregation is an important goal, but a more important goal is reading, writing, and arithmetic. Candidly, I think it’s somewhat insulting to say that in order for a black child to be learning he needs to be sitting next to a white child.”
The assumption by Garofalo that desegregation in schools benefits a black child because that child is “sitting next to a white child” seems ludicrous to me, and it shows the type of mentality that will foster and entertain the language in this legislation. Desegregation is a necessary step for racial integration in our society.
And this step backwards, or “taking the country back” is also a violation of the Constitution.
When the United States Supreme Court passed its landmark decision on Brown vs The Board of Education in 1954, the court decided that any state law establishing separate public schools for black and white students was unconstitutional, a direct violation of the Equal Protection clause mentioned in the 14th amendment of the Constitution. That clause states;
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
They proclaim their love and commitment to the Constitution of these United States, but commitment is more than just words… it’s deeds!
One of the ways Republicans propose to bring the budget under control, is the elimination of all funding for Planned Parenthood… ALL! However, one Republican/Teaparty senator, Scott Brown – representing Massachusetts, thinks this is going too far. After House Republicans voted and approved the cuts, Senator Brown had this to say;
“I support family planning and health services for women. Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts. However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate.”
Although the Hyde Amendment prohibits all public funding to be used for abortion services, Republicans have long argued that agencies like Planned Parenthood should not receive federal funding because it allows other funds to be made available for abortions. The cuts, if approved in February, would save $300 million. Republicans have promised their supporters and the Teaparty to cut as much as $61 billion from the federal budget.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
